Can't be having them waste their time on silly little things like introducing children into the wonderful world of slot machines for the chance of the next round of shiny pixel toys that they need to be competitive and not suck in the latest greatest video game. Important to not suck when your a kid. Do you remember what it was like to be a kid?
These companies want to be greedy assholes, well then keep it to the adults and stop exploiting children.
Keep this loot box garbage away from kids toys. That's what most these video games are becoming, they're becoming nothing but toys.
The game part is almost gone.
Again, I don't think that there has been ANY data on who buys this stuff, so you're still making assumptions about who is buying. You're effectively being an alarmist. You have no supporting evidence to support your theory. In fact, about 70% of gamers are over the age of 18.
Yup, but they represent less than 1/3 of people who play video games. So to say that kids are their target is actually quite inaccurate.
Hmmmmm, who will I target? The 71% of people who have credit cards and play my game? Or the less than 30% of people who play my games and need permission to spend money?
Also, remember that many of these games are time sinks and kids have more time to play than adults, so the mechanics are actually geared towards having adults pay, not kids.
You can dislike the idea of loot boxes, but if you're going to make an argument then at least come with statistics supporting it as problematic. Right now, all you're doing is making very thinly-veiled arguments with no actual evidence in support of it. I've been watching for something more than anecdotal evidence for a couple months now with nothing. Like before we bring out the pitchforks let's get something concrete. Unless you're a fan of witch hunts, but I'm not.
Let me quote you:
"Again, I don't think that there has been ANY data on who buys this stuff"
There are things called pre-paid credit cards and anyone including kids can buy them at the local corner store/gas station. They are also full of pre-paid pick your favorite game cards. I guess all those cards are aimed at financially responsible adults right?
From that other thread regarding SWB2 I read that you enjoyed and had a lot of fun playing that game with your children. Who whipped out the credit card for your children's copy?
My 19 soon to be 20 year old *adult* son has been a huge CoD fan since Black Ops. Funny thing is that I asked him why he didn't buy the latest CoD WW2 and he told me that CoD sucks now because there's too many kids playing. I found that conversation quite humorous.
Can't be having them waste their time on silly little things like introducing children into the wonderful world of slot machines for the chance of the next round of shiny pixel toys that they need to be competitive and not suck in the latest greatest video game. Important to not suck when your a kid. Do you remember what it was like to be a kid?
These companies want to be greedy assholes, well then keep it to the adults and stop exploiting children.
Keep this loot box garbage away from kids toys. That's what most these video games are becoming, they're becoming nothing but toys.
The game part is almost gone.
Again, I don't think that there has been ANY data on who buys this stuff, so you're still making assumptions about who is buying. You're effectively being an alarmist. You have no supporting evidence to support your theory. In fact, about 70% of gamers are over the age of 18.
Yup, but they represent less than 1/3 of people who play video games. So to say that kids are their target is actually quite inaccurate.
Hmmmmm, who will I target? The 71% of people who have credit cards and play my game? Or the less than 30% of people who play my games and need permission to spend money?
Also, remember that many of these games are time sinks and kids have more time to play than adults, so the mechanics are actually geared towards having adults pay, not kids.
You can dislike the idea of loot boxes, but if you're going to make an argument then at least come with statistics supporting it as problematic. Right now, all you're doing is making very thinly-veiled arguments with no actual evidence in support of it. I've been watching for something more than anecdotal evidence for a couple months now with nothing. Like before we bring out the pitchforks let's get something concrete. Unless you're a fan of witch hunts, but I'm not.
Let me quote you:
"Again, I don't think that there has been ANY data on who buys this stuff"
There are things called pre-paid credit cards and anyone including kids can buy them at the local corner store/gas station. They are also full of pre-paid pick your favorite game cards. I guess all those cards are aimed at financially responsible adults right?
From that other thread regarding SWB2 I read that you enjoyed and had a lot of fun playing that game with your children. Who whipped out the credit card for your children's copy?
My 19 soon to be 20 year old *adult* son has been a huge CoD fan since Black Ops. Funny thing is that I asked him why he didn't buy the latest CoD WW2 and he told me that CoD sucks now because there's too many kids playing. I found that conversation quite humorous.
edit:
Pretty simple actually
An "A" is targeted for adults
Everything else is targeted for kids
Actually, M and up is adult. AO is reserved for the worst of the worst. That's not the point, though. You did make one here, though. Lots of kids play COD. My kids do. So the ratings, as an informational source, are effective, but do very little more than inform. I bought 2 copies of that over the holidays as well. Also, each of my 4 underage kids has my credit card on their PS account, so I'm well aware of what they're buying. They actually pay ME and I buy their stuff.
As far as pre-paid cards go. My kids did receive some of those over the holidays. They are more than welcome to use those as they see fit. I also received a couple, though, and I am not a kid. Again, you're using anecdotal evidence and how you THINK kids can spend money in games as opposed to actual data on what kids are spending and how it's pandemic. I'm not sure what' you're trying to illustrate, but if we're playing the anecdote game, I just gave you a first hand anecdote that tells a much different story.
In fact, of my 4 kids, none have spent a single dime on a loot crate in either of the games mentioned. Of my eldest son's extended online friends, there is one, who he plays with in MLB 2017, who has spent money on in-game currency. That amounted to like $50. I don't know whether that currency is used to purchase card packs or to buy players on the online marketplace itself. Of my own kids, my biggest spender in the past 12 months has been my 10 year-old who spent over $100 on a season pass and operator unlocks for Rainbow Six Siege. Not randomized loot crates, ACTUAL direct-sale items and DLC.
How many loot crates has your son bought? That's a retorical question because I remember you telling of how your son was up in arms over the loot crate debate, so I'm assuming zero. So what we've established is that 100% of kids have not spent money on RNG loot crates.
Look, let me re-position myself for the purpose of perspective. What I'm showing here is nothing short of what the government would have to contend with in court. In fact, they probably have less to contend with. What I'm saying is that, in a court of appeals, there are effectively zero legs for the government to stand on. So the extent of the regulation would, ultimately, be limited to publishing of odds. Anything more aggressive than that would require VERY strong data-based areguments, that simply do not exist.
Again, I don't think that there has been ANY data on who buys this stuff, so you're still making assumptions about who is buying. You're effectively being an alarmist. You have no supporting evidence to support your theory. In fact, about 70% of gamers are over the age of 18.
Yup, but they represent less than 1/3 of people who play video games. So to say that kids are their target is actually quite inaccurate.
Hmmmmm, who will I target? The 71% of people who have credit cards and play my game? Or the less than 30% of people who play my games and need permission to spend money?
Also, remember that many of these games are time sinks and kids have more time to play than adults, so the mechanics are actually geared towards having adults pay, not kids.
You can dislike the idea of loot boxes, but if you're going to make an argument then at least come with statistics supporting it as problematic. Right now, all you're doing is making very thinly-veiled arguments with no actual evidence in support of it. I've been watching for something more than anecdotal evidence for a couple months now with nothing. Like before we bring out the pitchforks let's get something concrete. Unless you're a fan of witch hunts, but I'm not.
Let me quote you:
"Again, I don't think that there has been ANY data on who buys this stuff"
There are things called pre-paid credit cards and anyone including kids can buy them at the local corner store/gas station. They are also full of pre-paid pick your favorite game cards. I guess all those cards are aimed at financially responsible adults right?
From that other thread regarding SWB2 I read that you enjoyed and had a lot of fun playing that game with your children. Who whipped out the credit card for your children's copy?
My 19 soon to be 20 year old *adult* son has been a huge CoD fan since Black Ops. Funny thing is that I asked him why he didn't buy the latest CoD WW2 and he told me that CoD sucks now because there's too many kids playing. I found that conversation quite humorous.
edit:
Pretty simple actually
An "A" is targeted for adults
Everything else is targeted for kids
Actually, M and up is adult. AO is reserved for the worst of the worst. That's not the point, though. You did make one here, though. Lots of kids play COD. My kids do. So the ratings, as an informational source, are effective, but do very little more than inform. I bought 2 copies of that over the holidays as well. Also, each of my 4 underage kids has my credit card on their PS account, so I'm well aware of what they're buying. They actually pay ME and I buy their stuff.
As far as pre-paid cards go. My kids did receive some of those over the holidays. They are more than welcome to use those as they see fit. I also received a couple, though, and I am not a kid. Again, you're using anecdotal evidence and how you THINK kids can spend money in games as opposed to actual data on what kids are spending and how it's pandemic. I'm not sure what' you're trying to illustrate, but if we're playing the anecdote game, I just gave you a first hand anecdote that tells a much different story.
In fact, of my 4 kids, none have spent a single dime on a loot crate in either of the games mentioned. Of my eldest son's extended online friends, there is one, who he plays with in MLB 2017, who has spent money on in-game currency. That amounted to like $50. I don't know whether that currency is used to purchase card packs or to buy players on the online marketplace itself. Of my own kids, my biggest spender in the past 12 months has been my 10 year-old who spent over $100 on a season pass and operator unlocks for Rainbow Six Siege. Not randomized loot crates, ACTUAL direct-sale items and DLC.
How many loot crates has your son bought? That's a retorical question because I remember you telling of how your son was up in arms over the loot crate debate, so I'm assuming zero. So what we've established is that 100% of kids have not spent money on RNG loot crates.
Look, let me re-position myself for the purpose of perspective. What I'm showing here is nothing short of what the government would have to contend with in court. In fact, they probably have less to contend with. What I'm saying is that, in a court of appeals, there are effectively zero legs for the government to stand on. So the extent of the regulation would, ultimately, be limited to publishing of odds. Anything more aggressive than that would require VERY strong data-based areguments, that simply do not exist.
Your kids and my kids are/were fortunate to have active, responsible parents. I've tried my best to help my kids become intelligent, responsible adults.
My *opinion* of the loot box monetization model is that it's predatory. Companies do not post odds, they do not want to post odds and they will have to be forced to post odds.
I believe that fact alone proves the predatory nature of the business model.
Children should not be exposed to any type of predatory business practice. Let them grow up first.
Banning the practice is completely unrealistic and unwarranted. Posting odds is the minimal and that has zero to do with children. It's pretty pathetic that companies can sell this crap without having to reveal the odds in the first place.
Games with this type of slot machine monetization model should be rated 18+ at the least. Games with this type of model should not be able to be sold directly to children. And whatever is needed to make that happen.
Your kids and my kids are/were fortunate to have active, responsible parents. I've tried my best to help my kids become intelligent, responsible adults.
My *opinion* of the loot box monetization model is that it's predatory. Companies do not post odds, they do not want to post odds and they will have to be forced to post odds.
I believe that fact alone proves the predatory nature of the business model.
Children should not be exposed to any type of predatory business practice. Let them grow up first.
Banning the practice is completely unrealistic and unwarranted. Posting odds is the minimal and that has zero to do with children. It's pretty pathetic that companies can sell this crap without having to reveal the odds in the first place.
Games with this type of slot machine monetization model should be rated 18+ at the least. Games with this type of model should not be able to be sold directly to children. And whatever is needed to make that happen.
I can agree with you on odds. I think they should be there. I'd be interested to know whether casinos are required to post their odds.
With regards to the children defense, I have and continue to hate that argument because I feel like it muddies the water. Remember that as soon as you add in an additional layer of complexity, there is an additional burden of proof on the person seeking to pass the regulation.
The more preceise problem with the "save the children" argument is simply that this sort of blind box already exists and is marketed to children already in physical products. So taking on blind boxes at that level now sees a non-trivial impact to revenues of those companies and would have an actual, real, impact to the American Economy. It will mean lost jobs, lost revenues, etc. etc. So that's where this burden of proof essentially would need to show that this problem is pandemic and we are creating a society of chronic gamblers. Without that, it's possible for the whole damn thing to be defeated.
Personally, I'd take the publishing of odds as a big step forward. Not only does it provide you with odds, but it gives parents the ability to educate their kids, and even KIDS to educate other kids. In my opinion, abstaining does very little else than prolong the inevitable. However, if you TEACH these kids at a young age, it's much more likely that they would be impacted by these mechanics. All my kids know what P2W is, and they detest it. I never taught them that lesson.
Your kids and my kids are/were fortunate to have active, responsible parents. I've tried my best to help my kids become intelligent, responsible adults.
My *opinion* of the loot box monetization model is that it's predatory. Companies do not post odds, they do not want to post odds and they will have to be forced to post odds.
I believe that fact alone proves the predatory nature of the business model.
Children should not be exposed to any type of predatory business practice. Let them grow up first.
Banning the practice is completely unrealistic and unwarranted. Posting odds is the minimal and that has zero to do with children. It's pretty pathetic that companies can sell this crap without having to reveal the odds in the first place.
Games with this type of slot machine monetization model should be rated 18+ at the least. Games with this type of model should not be able to be sold directly to children. And whatever is needed to make that happen.
I can agree with you on odds. I think they should be there. I'd be interested to know whether casinos are required to post their odds.
With regards to the children defense, I have and continue to hate that argument because I feel like it muddies the water. Remember that as soon as you add in an additional layer of complexity, there is an additional burden of proof on the person seeking to pass the regulation.
The more preceise problem with the "save the children" argument is simply that this sort of blind box already exists and is marketed to children already in physical products. So taking on blind boxes at that level now sees a non-trivial impact to revenues of those companies and would have an actual, real, impact to the American Economy. It will mean lost jobs, lost revenues, etc. etc. So that's where this burden of proof essentially would need to show that this problem is pandemic and we are creating a society of chronic gamblers. Without that, it's possible for the whole damn thing to be defeated.
Personally, I'd take the publishing of odds as a big step forward. Not only does it provide you with odds, but it gives parents the ability to educate their kids, and even KIDS to educate other kids. In my opinion, abstaining does very little else than prolong the inevitable. However, if you TEACH these kids at a young age, it's much more likely that they would be impacted by these mechanics. All my kids know what P2W is, and they detest it. I never taught them that lesson.
That's a reasonable position.
I'd just have to question the impact to the American economy part. Another question would be how much damage and how many jobs does this type of product cost the American Economy. Money spent on loot boxes is less money spent elsewhere. I'd suggest the labor involved making loot box assets is minimal at best and many of these types of task's are now being jobbed out to places where the labor rate is significantly lower. You can tell by watching the credits on many of the new CGI children's shows etc.
Levis are now manufactured in Brazil
Many Harley Davidson parts are now manufactured in Taiwan
Your kids and my kids are/were fortunate to have active, responsible parents. I've tried my best to help my kids become intelligent, responsible adults.
My *opinion* of the loot box monetization model is that it's predatory. Companies do not post odds, they do not want to post odds and they will have to be forced to post odds.
I believe that fact alone proves the predatory nature of the business model.
Children should not be exposed to any type of predatory business practice. Let them grow up first.
Banning the practice is completely unrealistic and unwarranted. Posting odds is the minimal and that has zero to do with children. It's pretty pathetic that companies can sell this crap without having to reveal the odds in the first place.
Games with this type of slot machine monetization model should be rated 18+ at the least. Games with this type of model should not be able to be sold directly to children. And whatever is needed to make that happen.
I can agree with you on odds. I think they should be there. I'd be interested to know whether casinos are required to post their odds.
With regards to the children defense, I have and continue to hate that argument because I feel like it muddies the water. Remember that as soon as you add in an additional layer of complexity, there is an additional burden of proof on the person seeking to pass the regulation.
The more preceise problem with the "save the children" argument is simply that this sort of blind box already exists and is marketed to children already in physical products. So taking on blind boxes at that level now sees a non-trivial impact to revenues of those companies and would have an actual, real, impact to the American Economy. It will mean lost jobs, lost revenues, etc. etc. So that's where this burden of proof essentially would need to show that this problem is pandemic and we are creating a society of chronic gamblers. Without that, it's possible for the whole damn thing to be defeated.
Personally, I'd take the publishing of odds as a big step forward. Not only does it provide you with odds, but it gives parents the ability to educate their kids, and even KIDS to educate other kids. In my opinion, abstaining does very little else than prolong the inevitable. However, if you TEACH these kids at a young age, it's much more likely that they would be impacted by these mechanics. All my kids know what P2W is, and they detest it. I never taught them that lesson.
That's a reasonable position.
I'd just have to question the impact to the American economy part. Another question would be how much damage and how many jobs does this type of product cost the American Economy. Money spent on loot boxes is less money spent elsewhere. I'd suggest the labor involved making loot box assets is minimal at best and many of these types of task's are now being jobbed out to places where the labor rate is significantly lower. You can tell by watching the credits on many of the new CGI children's shows etc.
Levis are now manufactured in Brazil
Many Harley Davidson parts are now manufactured in Taiwan
Yeah, economic impact is a nebulous cloud of unknowns. However, EA and Activision are, actually, quite diversified and the impact to them with any legislation surrounding this would be minimal, it's companies in things like the mobile space which would be impacted more significantly, companies that rely on these types of RNG sales in order to survive. It's never about the billion dollar companies.
I mean take a look at EA Sports. So I can only talk to MLB, and only at a very high level. However, in MLB they have Ultimate Team where you can build a team to take on other people online (so competitive multiplayer). However, they also provide a marketplace where you can purchase players to create your ultimate team (or you can buy & earn card packs). This marketplace is player driven, so you can sell players on the marketplace and also buy them from other players, using in-game currency, earned in the game or you can purchase it. Like that COMPLETELY skirts this whole gambling discussion. So they already have systems in place to circumvent any regulation that might come into place. It'll really only be the smaller companies who would see a significant impact. That being said, to what degree this would impact anything is up in the air.
1. RNG (I know RNG is not gambling just stick with me on this) is a basic fundamental part of pretty much all games. Games are pretty much a combination of skill and RNG in which the RNG provides the adventure.
2. Thus the debate over 'gambling' specifically is around the question of VALUE. Does a digital red hat have value? how does a red hat have more value then a +1 sword? if a +1 sword has value then does that also mean my table top game in which I write down '+1 sword' have value? not an easy question to answer.
3. Is something of value ONLY when it has dollar values assigned to it?
4. CONCLUSION...THE GOOD PART...its going to be really hard to argue that RNG for value is fine but as soon as you assign a man made measurement of value called 'dollars' then it suddenly and magically become a highly addictive substance that needs to be controlled more so then most things in video games. but to be fair that these are the same points I would make about gambling and clearly its been censored many places which I personally think is logically stupid
and finally..I dont for a second believe peoples movotvation around this subject other than the mothers who dont play video games, is 'about the kids'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I still don't understand why people buy virtual items, but even less so a randomly generated item. I can understand the desire to gamble in real life for money or pay for real items. This should be the question most people ask themselves.
Looking at some of the posts from responsible parents we can see why these games exist. They don't have to pay a subscription and their kids play mostly for free. All they pay is for a few virtual items that adds up to the cost of a single player game. They don't really care about how that affects other people who play the game.
1. RNG (I know RNG is not gambling just stick with me on this) is a basic fundamental part of pretty much all games. Games are pretty much a combination of skill and RNG in which the RNG provides the adventure.
2. Thus the debate over 'gambling' specifically is around the question of VALUE. Does a digital red hat have value? how does a red hat have more value then a +1 sword? if a +1 sword has value then does that also mean my table top game in which I write down '+1 sword' have value? not an easy question to answer.
3. Is something of value ONLY when it has dollar values assigned to it?
4. CONCLUSION...THE GOOD PART...its going to be really hard to argue that RNG for value is fine but as soon as you assign a man made measurement of value called 'dollars' then it suddenly and magically become a highly addictive substance that needs to be controlled more so then most things in video games. but to be fair that these are the same points I would make about gambling and clearly its been censored many places which I personally think is logically stupid
and finally..I dont for a second believe peoples movotvation around this subject other than the mothers who dont play video games, is 'about the kids'
The problem is tying the RNG directly to money.
If a company is charging $5 for a +1 sword, they are assigning value. That value = $5
All your comments regarding "The Kids" tells me is that you don't and didn't have any of your own.
There is one thing that all *intelligent* life forms share in common. They care for, protect and nurture their offspring. Many *social* animals make this a community effort.
1. RNG (I know RNG is not gambling just stick with me on this) is a basic fundamental part of pretty much all games. Games are pretty much a combination of skill and RNG in which the RNG provides the adventure.
2. Thus the debate over 'gambling' specifically is around the question of VALUE. Does a digital red hat have value? how does a red hat have more value then a +1 sword? if a +1 sword has value then does that also mean my table top game in which I write down '+1 sword' have value? not an easy question to answer.
3. Is something of value ONLY when it has dollar values assigned to it?
4. CONCLUSION...THE GOOD PART...its going to be really hard to argue that RNG for value is fine but as soon as you assign a man made measurement of value called 'dollars' then it suddenly and magically become a highly addictive substance that needs to be controlled more so then most things in video games. but to be fair that these are the same points I would make about gambling and clearly its been censored many places which I personally think is logically stupid
and finally..I dont for a second believe peoples movotvation around this subject other than the mothers who dont play video games, is 'about the kids'
The problem is tying the RNG directly to money.
If a company is charging $5 for a +1 sword, they are assigning value. That value = $5
All your comments regarding "The Kids" tells me is that you don't and didn't have any of your own.
There is one thing that all *intelligent* life forms share in common. They care for, protect and nurture their offspring. Many *social* animals make this a community effort.
The reasons for this are pretty elementary.
1. I agree that if a dollar value is assigned and people pay it, that it now has a value attributed to dollars. its just that its a question worth asking to make a person think about the subject as it relates to gambling. If I have a table top game and I charge a dollar to write down +1 sword on your character sheet its now have value in which before it didnt....however..
2. I would think it would be hard to convince someone that BECAUSE you assigned the value of money (instead of value of something different) that now automagically it has become one of the most addictive and dangerous things out there.
3. and no I do not for a second believe peoples motivation here on MMORPG posting about the evils of gambling in video games is motivated because of a deep concern of childerns safety. Regadless of how many kids they have had. more than once i have read 'but its a steping stone' gee....a 'steping stone' you say? really? what is your real motovation here?
also..I might ask, how well did 'for the kids' turn out for regulating violence in video games?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. RNG (I know RNG is not gambling just stick with me on this) is a basic fundamental part of pretty much all games. Games are pretty much a combination of skill and RNG in which the RNG provides the adventure.
2. Thus the debate over 'gambling' specifically is around the question of VALUE. Does a digital red hat have value? how does a red hat have more value then a +1 sword? if a +1 sword has value then does that also mean my table top game in which I write down '+1 sword' have value? not an easy question to answer.
3. Is something of value ONLY when it has dollar values assigned to it?
4. CONCLUSION...THE GOOD PART...its going to be really hard to argue that RNG for value is fine but as soon as you assign a man made measurement of value called 'dollars' then it suddenly and magically become a highly addictive substance that needs to be controlled more so then most things in video games. but to be fair that these are the same points I would make about gambling and clearly its been censored many places which I personally think is logically stupid
and finally..I dont for a second believe peoples movotvation around this subject other than the mothers who dont play video games, is 'about the kids'
The problem is tying the RNG directly to money.
If a company is charging $5 for a +1 sword, they are assigning value. That value = $5
All your comments regarding "The Kids" tells me is that you don't and didn't have any of your own.
There is one thing that all *intelligent* life forms share in common. They care for, protect and nurture their offspring. Many *social* animals make this a community effort.
The reasons for this are pretty elementary.
1. I agree that if a dollar value is assigned and people pay it, that it now has a value attributed to dollars. its just that its a question worth asking to make a person think about the subject as it relates to gambling. If I have a table top game and I charge a dollar to write down +1 sword on your character sheet its now have value in which before it didnt....however..
2. I would think it would be hard to convince someone that BECAUSE you assigned the value of money (instead of value of something different) that now automagically it has become one of the most addictive and dangerous things out there.
3. and no I do not for a second believe peoples motivation here on MMORPG posting about the evils of gambling in video games is motivated because of a deep concern of childerns safety. Regadless of how many kids they have had. more than once i have read 'but its a steping stone' gee....a 'steping stone' you say? really? what is your real motovation here?
also..I might ask, how well did 'for the kids' turn out for regulating violence in video games?
1. Glad we can agree
2. Think about that for a second.
Look at the huge value (money) that is placed on the entertainment industry. Things like movies, you really don't get anything tangible. You might even dislike the movie and be bored to fuck for an hour and thirty minutes but yet it has an *accepted* value.
The things within loot boxes also have an *accepted* value. A value that people are willing to play a game of chance on. If they didn't people wouldn't be buying them.
IMHO the gambling aspect of these things are far from decided.
3. Gambling has and has always had negative effects on society. These negative effects are quite well documented and are the reasons that Gambling is so strongly regulated everywhere including Gambling mecca's like Las Vegas, Monte Carlo etc. etc.
Again as for the kids part. Many people don't give a fuck, the more people that don't give a fuck = a shittier place to live. More that don't care = more shittier.
I'd have to question others on their motivations. Do they hold stocks in the industry? Are they employed in the industry?
Do they profit from it?
If one profits from it... the right thing to do, is keep your mouth shut about it. Some here do this and I respect them for it. They are intelligent enough to know that they have a conflict of interest. It shows good character.
I think the government stepping in to fix a problem that boils down to poor taste in games is just plain dumb. Almost every actual good game does not have loot boxes nor do they have crazy dlc schemes. If adults stuck to adult games with adult mechanics and systems, excluding children from the market, and stopped with the mindset that the number of people watching other people play the game on some site dictates how good a game is, there would never be a lockbox or costume dlc sold again.
Take Underrail. It is one of the best rpgs made since the original Fall Outs. If people supported real games that focus on mechanics, systems, and content instead superficial nonsense like graphics, voice acting, and how fun it is to watch other people play the game the issue would never have surfaced.
Instead of trying to force regulation onto a lucrative children's hobby, we should try and approach this hobby through an adult perspective with mature tastes. Underrail is a far more serious game than whatever trash these lootbox companies are peddling to most of you and literally your little six and seven year old children too.
Regulation isn't going to help a retarded community. I a mean retarded quite literally in its correct sense. The gaming community has stunted growth. The community grew up but they are fine with the major releases of their hobby having a market that includes little kids.
This argument is a valid as getting mad that your favorite movies have expensive toy lines associated with them. Watch better movies made for adults. Put down Harry Potter and My Little Pony and pick up some Melville or Tolstoy and watch how your mind fills instead of your wallet emptying.
1. RNG (I know RNG is not gambling just stick with me on this) is a basic fundamental part of pretty much all games. Games are pretty much a combination of skill and RNG in which the RNG provides the adventure.
2. Thus the debate over 'gambling' specifically is around the question of VALUE. Does a digital red hat have value? how does a red hat have more value then a +1 sword? if a +1 sword has value then does that also mean my table top game in which I write down '+1 sword' have value? not an easy question to answer.
3. Is something of value ONLY when it has dollar values assigned to it?
4. CONCLUSION...THE GOOD PART...its going to be really hard to argue that RNG for value is fine but as soon as you assign a man made measurement of value called 'dollars' then it suddenly and magically become a highly addictive substance that needs to be controlled more so then most things in video games. but to be fair that these are the same points I would make about gambling and clearly its been censored many places which I personally think is logically stupid
and finally..I dont for a second believe peoples movotvation around this subject other than the mothers who dont play video games, is 'about the kids'
The problem is tying the RNG directly to money.
If a company is charging $5 for a +1 sword, they are assigning value. That value = $5
All your comments regarding "The Kids" tells me is that you don't and didn't have any of your own.
There is one thing that all *intelligent* life forms share in common. They care for, protect and nurture their offspring. Many *social* animals make this a community effort.
The reasons for this are pretty elementary.
1. I agree that if a dollar value is assigned and people pay it, that it now has a value attributed to dollars. its just that its a question worth asking to make a person think about the subject as it relates to gambling. If I have a table top game and I charge a dollar to write down +1 sword on your character sheet its now have value in which before it didnt....however..
2. I would think it would be hard to convince someone that BECAUSE you assigned the value of money (instead of value of something different) that now automagically it has become one of the most addictive and dangerous things out there.
3. and no I do not for a second believe peoples motivation here on MMORPG posting about the evils of gambling in video games is motivated because of a deep concern of childerns safety. Regadless of how many kids they have had. more than once i have read 'but its a steping stone' gee....a 'steping stone' you say? really? what is your real motovation here?
also..I might ask, how well did 'for the kids' turn out for regulating violence in video games?
1. Glad we can agree
2. Think about that for a second.
Look at the huge value (money) that is placed on the entertainment industry. Things like movies, you really don't get anything tangible. You might even dislike the movie and be bored to fuck for an hour and thirty minutes but yet it has an *accepted* value.
The things within loot boxes also have an *accepted* value. A value that people are willing to play a game of chance on. If they didn't people wouldn't be buying them.
IMHO the gambling aspect of these things are far from decided.
3. Gambling has and has always had negative effects on society. These negative effects are quite well documented and are the reasons that Gambling is so strongly regulated everywhere including Gambling mecca's like Las Vegas, Monte Carlo etc. etc.
Again as for the kids part. Many people don't give a fuck, the more people that don't give a fuck = a shittier place to live. More that don't care = more shittier.
I'd have to question others on their motivations. Do they hold stocks in the industry? Are they employed in the industry?
Do they profit from it?
If one profits from it... the right thing to do, is keep your mouth shut about it. Some here do this and I respect them for it. They are intelligent enough to know that they have a conflict of interest. It shows good character.
1. yes
2. I feel like what I said here was completely missed. Let me try and example, if I roll dice and you win a +1 sword. nobody gets addicted, no families broken, no 12 step programs needed, no tradegy, no need to outlaw it. But if you make the exact same action related to dollars instead of 'funbucks' it suddenly and magically becomes an addiction that needs a 12 step program?
3. horseshit. its lobbying bullshit that is about as serious as 'smoking weed always lead to crack cocaine' or 'just say no to sex'. just because its the law doent mean its not ridiculous. VIDEO GAMES are 'additive' using such logic.
4. There is nothing you can ever say that will convince me that you or anyone on this message board is posting these arguments mainly because they are wanting to protect the childern. Not buying it, its horseshit. More over, that tactic didnt work for violence in video games like...at all.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. RNG (I know RNG is not gambling just stick with me on this) is a basic fundamental part of pretty much all games. Games are pretty much a combination of skill and RNG in which the RNG provides the adventure.
2. Thus the debate over 'gambling' specifically is around the question of VALUE. Does a digital red hat have value? how does a red hat have more value then a +1 sword? if a +1 sword has value then does that also mean my table top game in which I write down '+1 sword' have value? not an easy question to answer.
3. Is something of value ONLY when it has dollar values assigned to it?
4. CONCLUSION...THE GOOD PART...its going to be really hard to argue that RNG for value is fine but as soon as you assign a man made measurement of value called 'dollars' then it suddenly and magically become a highly addictive substance that needs to be controlled more so then most things in video games. but to be fair that these are the same points I would make about gambling and clearly its been censored many places which I personally think is logically stupid
and finally..I dont for a second believe peoples movotvation around this subject other than the mothers who dont play video games, is 'about the kids'
The problem is tying the RNG directly to money.
If a company is charging $5 for a +1 sword, they are assigning value. That value = $5
All your comments regarding "The Kids" tells me is that you don't and didn't have any of your own.
There is one thing that all *intelligent* life forms share in common. They care for, protect and nurture their offspring. Many *social* animals make this a community effort.
The reasons for this are pretty elementary.
1. I agree that if a dollar value is assigned and people pay it, that it now has a value attributed to dollars. its just that its a question worth asking to make a person think about the subject as it relates to gambling. If I have a table top game and I charge a dollar to write down +1 sword on your character sheet its now have value in which before it didnt....however..
2. I would think it would be hard to convince someone that BECAUSE you assigned the value of money (instead of value of something different) that now automagically it has become one of the most addictive and dangerous things out there.
3. and no I do not for a second believe peoples motivation here on MMORPG posting about the evils of gambling in video games is motivated because of a deep concern of childerns safety. Regadless of how many kids they have had. more than once i have read 'but its a steping stone' gee....a 'steping stone' you say? really? what is your real motovation here?
also..I might ask, how well did 'for the kids' turn out for regulating violence in video games?
1. Glad we can agree
2. Think about that for a second.
Look at the huge value (money) that is placed on the entertainment industry. Things like movies, you really don't get anything tangible. You might even dislike the movie and be bored to fuck for an hour and thirty minutes but yet it has an *accepted* value.
The things within loot boxes also have an *accepted* value. A value that people are willing to play a game of chance on. If they didn't people wouldn't be buying them.
IMHO the gambling aspect of these things are far from decided.
3. Gambling has and has always had negative effects on society. These negative effects are quite well documented and are the reasons that Gambling is so strongly regulated everywhere including Gambling mecca's like Las Vegas, Monte Carlo etc. etc.
Again as for the kids part. Many people don't give a fuck, the more people that don't give a fuck = a shittier place to live. More that don't care = more shittier.
I'd have to question others on their motivations. Do they hold stocks in the industry? Are they employed in the industry?
Do they profit from it?
If one profits from it... the right thing to do, is keep your mouth shut about it. Some here do this and I respect them for it. They are intelligent enough to know that they have a conflict of interest. It shows good character.
1. yes
2. I feel like what I said here was completely missed. Let me try and example, if I roll dice and you win a +1 sword. nobody gets addicted, no families broken, no 12 step programs needed, no tradegy, no need to outlaw it. But if you make the exact same action related to dollars instead of 'funbucks' it suddenly and magically becomes an addiction that needs a 12 step program?
3. horseshit. its lobbying bullshit that is about as serious as 'smoking weed always lead to crack cocaine' or 'just say no to sex'. just because its the law doent mean its not ridiculous. VIDEO GAMES are 'additive' using such logic.
4. There is nothing you can ever say that will convince me that you or anyone on this message board is posting these arguments mainly because they are wanting to protect the childern. Not buying it, its horseshit. More over, that tactic didnt work for violence in video games like...at all.
2. and 3.
Video games are addictive. I bet most on this sight have struggled with that fact at one point or another in their lives, myself included.
4. I really couldn't care what you believe. I'm glad I'm not as cynical as you, I genuinely smile a lot.
What tactic are you referring to? The placing of an ERSB rating on the box? I'd agree that tactic doesn't work.
1. RNG (I know RNG is not gambling just stick with me on this) is a basic fundamental part of pretty much all games. Games are pretty much a combination of skill and RNG in which the RNG provides the adventure.
2. Thus the debate over 'gambling' specifically is around the question of VALUE. Does a digital red hat have value? how does a red hat have more value then a +1 sword? if a +1 sword has value then does that also mean my table top game in which I write down '+1 sword' have value? not an easy question to answer.
3. Is something of value ONLY when it has dollar values assigned to it?
4. CONCLUSION...THE GOOD PART...its going to be really hard to argue that RNG for value is fine but as soon as you assign a man made measurement of value called 'dollars' then it suddenly and magically become a highly addictive substance that needs to be controlled more so then most things in video games. but to be fair that these are the same points I would make about gambling and clearly its been censored many places which I personally think is logically stupid
and finally..I dont for a second believe peoples movotvation around this subject other than the mothers who dont play video games, is 'about the kids'
The problem is tying the RNG directly to money.
If a company is charging $5 for a +1 sword, they are assigning value. That value = $5
All your comments regarding "The Kids" tells me is that you don't and didn't have any of your own.
There is one thing that all *intelligent* life forms share in common. They care for, protect and nurture their offspring. Many *social* animals make this a community effort.
The reasons for this are pretty elementary.
1. I agree that if a dollar value is assigned and people pay it, that it now has a value attributed to dollars. its just that its a question worth asking to make a person think about the subject as it relates to gambling. If I have a table top game and I charge a dollar to write down +1 sword on your character sheet its now have value in which before it didnt....however..
2. I would think it would be hard to convince someone that BECAUSE you assigned the value of money (instead of value of something different) that now automagically it has become one of the most addictive and dangerous things out there.
3. and no I do not for a second believe peoples motivation here on MMORPG posting about the evils of gambling in video games is motivated because of a deep concern of childerns safety. Regadless of how many kids they have had. more than once i have read 'but its a steping stone' gee....a 'steping stone' you say? really? what is your real motovation here?
also..I might ask, how well did 'for the kids' turn out for regulating violence in video games?
1. Glad we can agree
2. Think about that for a second.
Look at the huge value (money) that is placed on the entertainment industry. Things like movies, you really don't get anything tangible. You might even dislike the movie and be bored to fuck for an hour and thirty minutes but yet it has an *accepted* value.
The things within loot boxes also have an *accepted* value. A value that people are willing to play a game of chance on. If they didn't people wouldn't be buying them.
IMHO the gambling aspect of these things are far from decided.
3. Gambling has and has always had negative effects on society. These negative effects are quite well documented and are the reasons that Gambling is so strongly regulated everywhere including Gambling mecca's like Las Vegas, Monte Carlo etc. etc.
Again as for the kids part. Many people don't give a fuck, the more people that don't give a fuck = a shittier place to live. More that don't care = more shittier.
I'd have to question others on their motivations. Do they hold stocks in the industry? Are they employed in the industry?
Do they profit from it?
If one profits from it... the right thing to do, is keep your mouth shut about it. Some here do this and I respect them for it. They are intelligent enough to know that they have a conflict of interest. It shows good character.
1. yes
2. I feel like what I said here was completely missed. Let me try and example, if I roll dice and you win a +1 sword. nobody gets addicted, no families broken, no 12 step programs needed, no tradegy, no need to outlaw it. But if you make the exact same action related to dollars instead of 'funbucks' it suddenly and magically becomes an addiction that needs a 12 step program?
3. horseshit. its lobbying bullshit that is about as serious as 'smoking weed always lead to crack cocaine' or 'just say no to sex'. just because its the law doent mean its not ridiculous. VIDEO GAMES are 'additive' using such logic.
4. There is nothing you can ever say that will convince me that you or anyone on this message board is posting these arguments mainly because they are wanting to protect the childern. Not buying it, its horseshit. More over, that tactic didnt work for violence in video games like...at all.
2. and 3.
Video games are addictive. I bet most on this sight have struggled with that fact at one point or another in their lives, myself included.
4. I really couldn't care what you believe. I'm glad I'm not as cynical as you, I genuinely smile a lot.
What tactic are you referring to? The placing of an ERSB rating on the box? I'd agree that tactic doesn't work.
if video games are addictive and if gambling is addictive and we should limit its use, then shouldnt we limit the use of video games for the same reason?
incidentally 'fun' of anykind, any form, any shape, is 'addictive' the only way to remove addictive material or substance is to remove fun. the problem with addiction is NOT the external, its the internal. Some people have addictive personalities that can be treated, but removing all aspects of fun from everyones enviroment is not how the problem is solved.
4. I dont care either, I know better. But yes, violence in video game and how it affects childern was a mega monster ultra mega huge deal that makes the question of 'gambling' look like childs play. So how would you expect to get more traction on Gambling having a more impactful solution then what all the moms in the country came up with around violence? its not going to happen, at best you can predict a similar solution to what was come up with on the question of violence. More over, every time the subject comes up the Moms are going to be asking....why are kids playing this game anyway? its about killing
so in short...why the fuck are people talking about protecting kid from gambling in a game they should not be allowed to play in the fucking first place becuase of the violence!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. I agree that if a dollar value is assigned and people pay it, that it now has a value attributed to dollars. its just that its a question worth asking to make a person think about the subject as it relates to gambling. If I have a table top game and I charge a dollar to write down +1 sword on your character sheet its now have value in which before it didnt....however..
2. I would think it would be hard to convince someone that BECAUSE you assigned the value of money (instead of value of something different) that now automagically it has become one of the most addictive and dangerous things out there.
3. and no I do not for a second believe peoples motivation here on MMORPG posting about the evils of gambling in video games is motivated because of a deep concern of childerns safety. Regadless of how many kids they have had. more than once i have read 'but its a steping stone' gee....a 'steping stone' you say? really? what is your real motovation here?
also..I might ask, how well did 'for the kids' turn out for regulating violence in video games?
1. Glad we can agree
2. Think about that for a second.
Look at the huge value (money) that is placed on the entertainment industry. Things like movies, you really don't get anything tangible. You might even dislike the movie and be bored to fuck for an hour and thirty minutes but yet it has an *accepted* value.
The things within loot boxes also have an *accepted* value. A value that people are willing to play a game of chance on. If they didn't people wouldn't be buying them.
IMHO the gambling aspect of these things are far from decided.
3. Gambling has and has always had negative effects on society. These negative effects are quite well documented and are the reasons that Gambling is so strongly regulated everywhere including Gambling mecca's like Las Vegas, Monte Carlo etc. etc.
Again as for the kids part. Many people don't give a fuck, the more people that don't give a fuck = a shittier place to live. More that don't care = more shittier.
I'd have to question others on their motivations. Do they hold stocks in the industry? Are they employed in the industry?
Do they profit from it?
If one profits from it... the right thing to do, is keep your mouth shut about it. Some here do this and I respect them for it. They are intelligent enough to know that they have a conflict of interest. It shows good character.
1. yes
2. I feel like what I said here was completely missed. Let me try and example, if I roll dice and you win a +1 sword. nobody gets addicted, no families broken, no 12 step programs needed, no tradegy, no need to outlaw it. But if you make the exact same action related to dollars instead of 'funbucks' it suddenly and magically becomes an addiction that needs a 12 step program?
3. horseshit. its lobbying bullshit that is about as serious as 'smoking weed always lead to crack cocaine' or 'just say no to sex'. just because its the law doent mean its not ridiculous. VIDEO GAMES are 'additive' using such logic.
4. There is nothing you can ever say that will convince me that you or anyone on this message board is posting these arguments mainly because they are wanting to protect the childern. Not buying it, its horseshit. More over, that tactic didnt work for violence in video games like...at all.
2. and 3.
Video games are addictive. I bet most on this sight have struggled with that fact at one point or another in their lives, myself included.
4. I really couldn't care what you believe. I'm glad I'm not as cynical as you, I genuinely smile a lot.
What tactic are you referring to? The placing of an ERSB rating on the box? I'd agree that tactic doesn't work.
if video games are addictive and if gambling is addictive and we should limit its use, then shouldnt we limit the use of video games for the same reason?
incidentally 'fun' of anykind, any form, any shape, is 'addictive' the only way to remove addictive material or substance is to remove fun. the problem with addiction is NOT the external, its the internal. Some people have addictive personalities that can be treated, but removing all aspects of fun from everyones enviroment is not how the problem is solved.
4. I dont care either, I know better. But yes, violence in video game and how it affects childern was a mega monster ultra mega huge deal that makes the question of 'gambling' look like childs play. So how would you expect to get more traction on Gambling having a more impactful solution then what all the moms in the country came up with around violence? its not going to happen, at best you can predict a similar solution to what was come up with on the question of violence. More over, every time the subject comes up the Moms are going to be asking....why are kids playing this game anyway? its about killing
so in short...why the fuck are people talking about protecting kid from gambling in a game they should not be allowed to play in the fucking first place becuase of the violence!
First thing is that the government doesn't limit you on your gambling. You are free to go to Vegas and lose everything you own if you so desire.
The government puts limits on who, how, and where gambling can be profited from. Gambling is one of the most lucrative types of business.
Lucrative ways to make money usually has a way of attracting Bad people who do Bad things.
Secondly if video game addiction becomes a big enough problem. You can bet dollars to doughnuts that there will be regulation surrounding it. Like pretty much every other industry, regulation will be placed on the producers and the sellers, not on the consumer.
4. If we can have secure online banking, I'm sure humans can come up with a better solution than ERSB labels.
Before violent video games or TV for that matter, little boys were playing cops n robbers, Cowboys n Indians etc. etc. etc.
IMHO violence runs a lot deeper than what we are exposed to by electronic mediums.
what is the current PEGI rating for Battlefront 2? now tell me how much you are invested in this topic because you want to protect the kids
I don't know what PEGI rating it has. It's funny that violence doesn't really bother me in games as long as it's in a fantasy setting and is done in such a fashion that it's not taken seriously. The battlefield type games that depict real war can be difficult to take sometimes. I was playing Sniper Elite from Steam a few months ago. Though it was fun I decided it was just too much after playing the first level. When you are killing things with a sword in a fantasy game or a laser gun in a sci-fi game it doesn't feel so bad. Even a game like Max Payne isn't that bad because it's completely fictional and over the top.
I also believe you need to constitute what violence is. It's not just killing. There is a lot more too it. Are you against aggression and bullying? I feel like society has always tried to bully people into certain beliefs depending on the time period. Today it's done in a passive peer pressure way via social media. I feel like aggression is part of being human, but it can be controlled if you really want to do so. You just have to learn the techniques. Some people just enjoy the feeling of aggression. It's like when dopamine is released by the body for sex.
what is the current PEGI rating for Battlefront 2? now tell me how much you are invested in this topic because you want to protect the kids
I don't know what PEGI rating it has. It's funny that violence doesn't really bother me in games as long as it's in a fantasy setting and is done in such a fashion that it's not taken seriously. The battlefield type games that depict real war can be difficult to take sometimes. I was playing Sniper Elite from Steam a few months ago. Though it was fun I decided it was just too much after playing the first level. When you are killing things with a sword in a fantasy game or a laser gun in a sci-fi game it doesn't feel so bad. Even a game like Max Payne isn't that bad because it's completely fictional and over the top.
Storming the beaches of Normandy in the first Medal of Honor game had quite an effect on me.
For me, it really brought to light what those guys had to go through. Heck it was tough in a video game, I can't imagine how it must of been i real life.
I'm not a religious guy, but I pray for those people.
what is the current PEGI rating for Battlefront 2? now tell me how much you are invested in this topic because you want to protect the kids
I don't know what PEGI rating it has. It's funny that violence doesn't really bother me in games as long as it's in a fantasy setting and is done in such a fashion that it's not taken seriously. The battlefield type games that depict real war can be difficult to take sometimes. I was playing Sniper Elite from Steam a few months ago. Though it was fun I decided it was just too much after playing the first level. When you are killing things with a sword in a fantasy game or a laser gun in a sci-fi game it doesn't feel so bad. Even a game like Max Payne isn't that bad because it's completely fictional and over the top.
my personal view on violence is not the point or really related.
PEGI 16 means people under the age of 16 are not supposed to play Battlefield 2. so the question is this? is all this concern about 'kids' being exposed to gambling really being that honest? I dont think so, becaue the very game that brought this up in the first place kids are not supposed to be playing!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Before violent video games or TV for that matter, little boys were playing cops n robbers, Cowboys n Indians etc. etc. etc.
IMHO violence runs a lot deeper than what we are exposed to by electronic mediums.
your missing the core point. Stop thinking about if violence is justified or not. look at it from 100% agnostic point of view regarding these two questions.
1. BF2 is the game that started all this, kids are not allowed to play that game in the first place. So how serious do you think people HONESTLY are about protecting kids from gambling? i dont buy it for a second.
2. Moms all over the country years ago started a campagin against violence in video games, they were popular, they were huge and the BEST they got was what? PEGI. So how successful do you really think 'Moms against gambling in games kids arent supposed to play in first place' is going to actually be?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Before violent video games or TV for that matter, little boys were playing cops n robbers, Cowboys n Indians etc. etc. etc.
IMHO violence runs a lot deeper than what we are exposed to by electronic mediums.
your missing the core point. Stop thinking about if violence is justified or not. look at it from 100% agnostic point of view regarding these two questions.
1. BF2 is the game that started all this, kids are not allowed to play that game in the first place. So how serious do you think people HONESTLY are about protecting kids from gambling? i dont buy it for a second.
2. Moms all over the country years ago started a campagin against violence in video games, they were popular, they were huge and the BEST they got was what? PEGI. So how successful do you really think 'Moms against gambling in games kids arent supposed to play in first place' is going to actually be?
1. The loot box controversy has been brewing a lot longer than BF2 and in our first world a 16 year old is still a kid.
2. The moms didn't get what they wanted, but the video game industry did.
Before violent video games or TV for that matter, little boys were playing cops n robbers, Cowboys n Indians etc. etc. etc.
IMHO violence runs a lot deeper than what we are exposed to by electronic mediums.
your missing the core point. Stop thinking about if violence is justified or not. look at it from 100% agnostic point of view regarding these two questions.
1. BF2 is the game that started all this, kids are not allowed to play that game in the first place. So how serious do you think people HONESTLY are about protecting kids from gambling? i dont buy it for a second.
2. Moms all over the country years ago started a campagin against violence in video games, they were popular, they were huge and the BEST they got was what? PEGI. So how successful do you really think 'Moms against gambling in games kids arent supposed to play in first place' is going to actually be?
1. The loot box controversy has been brewing a lot longer than BF2 and in our first world a 16 year old is still a kid.
2. The moms didn't get what they wanted, but the video game industry did.
1. that answer was predicted and I dont for a second buy it. this conversation started when BF2 hit the scene. THAT is when people started to care at a macro-level
2. every single solitary time you bring this subject up to any legal person or lay person the FIRST question out of their mouth is going to be 'but kids are not supposed to play the games that have actual gambling in them currently so WTF'?. I know we are pretending we actually decided to 'bring it up' but I am just saying if this gets traction, the question of violence is going to come up as well.
now here yet another question for you, gambling for 'funbucks' is not addictive, its only addictive if the value exchange is related to man made currency. something that most kids dont even understand at an eraly age but yet by magic currency in the form of dollars instead of in the form of 'fun bucks' fires off a chemical reaction that is a medical condition similar to the effects of sugar?
seriously?
there is a MUCH easier solution to this problem
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I agree loot boxes are iffy but you have to realize the laws are cryptic. I played Entropia Universe a long time and I strongly felt it had elements of gambling, but despite that it can't be regulated because somehow it's technically not gambling. And besides that it has other issues. For example, it's very expensive and dumbed down. Too much luck and not enough gameplay depth. Playing on a budget is like watching paint dry. My reaction was to work on C++ utility program alongside playing. Second, the sandbox is abysmal. Thirdly, there're monopoly issues in its economy. What happens is powerful players tend to rule over the rest, who only get the scraps. It's possible to still enjoy the game, as I played off/on for a while, but these problems linger.
I don't agree loot boxes are teh same thing as bosses dropping loot. Anybody making that argument is stretching. Why? Maybe they hate traditional games or actually like the loot boxes? Personally, I like some randomness in games. I don't want to hit for X everytime, nor do I want hte boss or monsters to drop the same things when they die. There's a lot more I can say. I would like to see dungeons change over time in a cause-effect way with strong AI in the background. I'd like to see them change their tactics too, so fights aren't rinse/repeat. I like to explore. I like engrossing worlds. I'm not just in it for the fun, I'm in it to be immersed in a world halfway believable.
I agree wit hthe posters who say be careful what you ask government to do. YOu may be young or you may be authoritarian, either way the government just loves to have more reasons to tax us. Another thing to regulate is another reason for them to feel important and demand higher taxes. It's ALWAYS to protect us and make the world better. When they finally put us in chains it'll be for our own protection. We'll even voluntarily chain ourselves because we think it's good for us!!!! That's how f****** up it all is. Think on this for a while before dismissing it as a conservative rant.
I'm only mildly conservative on social issues anyway. Mostly in the middle.
Comments
"Again, I don't think that there has been ANY data on who buys this stuff"
There are things called pre-paid credit cards and anyone including kids can buy them at the local corner store/gas station. They are also full of pre-paid pick your favorite game cards. I guess all those cards are aimed at financially responsible adults right?
From that other thread regarding SWB2 I read that you enjoyed and had a lot of fun playing that game with your children. Who whipped out the credit card for your children's copy?
My 19 soon to be 20 year old *adult* son has been a huge CoD fan since Black Ops. Funny thing is that I asked him why he didn't buy the latest CoD WW2 and he told me that CoD sucks now because there's too many kids playing. I found that conversation quite humorous.
edit:
Pretty simple actually
An "A" is targeted for adults
Everything else is targeted for kids
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
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
----------------
My *opinion* of the loot box monetization model is that it's predatory. Companies do not post odds, they do not want to post odds and they will have to be forced to post odds.
I believe that fact alone proves the predatory nature of the business model.
Children should not be exposed to any type of predatory business practice. Let them grow up first.
Banning the practice is completely unrealistic and unwarranted. Posting odds is the minimal and that has zero to do with children. It's pretty pathetic that companies can sell this crap without having to reveal the odds in the first place.
Games with this type of slot machine monetization model should be rated 18+ at the least. Games with this type of model should not be able to be sold directly to children. And whatever is needed to make that happen.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
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
----------------
I'd just have to question the impact to the American economy part. Another question would be how much damage and how many jobs does this type of product cost the American Economy. Money spent on loot boxes is less money spent elsewhere. I'd suggest the labor involved making loot box assets is minimal at best and many of these types of task's are now being jobbed out to places where the labor rate is significantly lower. You can tell by watching the credits on many of the new CGI children's shows etc.
Levis are now manufactured in Brazil
Many Harley Davidson parts are now manufactured in Taiwan
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
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
----------------
1. RNG (I know RNG is not gambling just stick with me on this) is a basic fundamental part of pretty much all games. Games are pretty much a combination of skill and RNG in which the RNG provides the adventure.
2. Thus the debate over 'gambling' specifically is around the question of VALUE. Does a digital red hat have value? how does a red hat have more value then a +1 sword? if a +1 sword has value then does that also mean my table top game in which I write down '+1 sword' have value? not an easy question to answer.
3. Is something of value ONLY when it has dollar values assigned to it?
4. CONCLUSION...THE GOOD PART...its going to be really hard to argue that RNG for value is fine but as soon as you assign a man made measurement of value called 'dollars' then it suddenly and magically become a highly addictive substance that needs to be controlled more so then most things in video games. but to be fair that these are the same points I would make about gambling and clearly its been censored many places which I personally think is logically stupid
and finally..I dont for a second believe peoples movotvation around this subject other than the mothers who dont play video games, is 'about the kids'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Looking at some of the posts from responsible parents we can see why these games exist. They don't have to pay a subscription and their kids play mostly for free. All they pay is for a few virtual items that adds up to the cost of a single player game. They don't really care about how that affects other people who play the game.
If a company is charging $5 for a +1 sword, they are assigning value. That value = $5
All your comments regarding "The Kids" tells me is that you don't and didn't have any of your own.
There is one thing that all *intelligent* life forms share in common. They care for, protect and nurture their offspring. Many *social* animals make this a community effort.
The reasons for this are pretty elementary.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
2. I would think it would be hard to convince someone that BECAUSE you assigned the value of money (instead of value of something different) that now automagically it has become one of the most addictive and dangerous things out there.
3. and no I do not for a second believe peoples motivation here on MMORPG posting about the evils of gambling in video games is motivated because of a deep concern of childerns safety. Regadless of how many kids they have had. more than once i have read 'but its a steping stone' gee....a 'steping stone' you say? really? what is your real motovation here?
also..I might ask, how well did 'for the kids' turn out for regulating violence in video games?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2. Think about that for a second.
Look at the huge value (money) that is placed on the entertainment industry. Things like movies, you really don't get anything tangible. You might even dislike the movie and be bored to fuck for an hour and thirty minutes but yet it has an *accepted* value.
The things within loot boxes also have an *accepted* value. A value that people are willing to play a game of chance on. If they didn't people wouldn't be buying them.
IMHO the gambling aspect of these things are far from decided.
3. Gambling has and has always had negative effects on society. These negative effects are quite well documented and are the reasons that Gambling is so strongly regulated everywhere including Gambling mecca's like Las Vegas, Monte Carlo etc. etc.
Again as for the kids part. Many people don't give a fuck, the more people that don't give a fuck = a shittier place to live. More that don't care = more shittier.
I'd have to question others on their motivations. Do they hold stocks in the industry? Are they employed in the industry?
Do they profit from it?
If one profits from it... the right thing to do, is keep your mouth shut about it. Some here do this and I respect them for it. They are intelligent enough to know that they have a conflict of interest. It shows good character.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Take Underrail. It is one of the best rpgs made since the original Fall Outs. If people supported real games that focus on mechanics, systems, and content instead superficial nonsense like graphics, voice acting, and how fun it is to watch other people play the game the issue would never have surfaced.
Instead of trying to force regulation onto a lucrative children's hobby, we should try and approach this hobby through an adult perspective with mature tastes. Underrail is a far more serious game than whatever trash these lootbox companies are peddling to most of you and literally your little six and seven year old children too.
Regulation isn't going to help a retarded community. I a mean retarded quite literally in its correct sense. The gaming community has stunted growth. The community grew up but they are fine with the major releases of their hobby having a market that includes little kids.
This argument is a valid as getting mad that your favorite movies have expensive toy lines associated with them. Watch better movies made for adults. Put down Harry Potter and My Little Pony and pick up some Melville or Tolstoy and watch how your mind fills instead of your wallet emptying.
2. I feel like what I said here was completely missed. Let me try and example, if I roll dice and you win a +1 sword. nobody gets addicted, no families broken, no 12 step programs needed, no tradegy, no need to outlaw it. But if you make the exact same action related to dollars instead of 'funbucks' it suddenly and magically becomes an addiction that needs a 12 step program?
3. horseshit. its lobbying bullshit that is about as serious as 'smoking weed always lead to crack cocaine' or 'just say no to sex'. just because its the law doent mean its not ridiculous. VIDEO GAMES are 'additive' using such logic.
4. There is nothing you can ever say that will convince me that you or anyone on this message board is posting these arguments mainly because they are wanting to protect the childern. Not buying it, its horseshit. More over, that tactic didnt work for violence in video games like...at all.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Video games are addictive. I bet most on this sight have struggled with that fact at one point or another in their lives, myself included.
4. I really couldn't care what you believe. I'm glad I'm not as cynical as you, I genuinely smile a lot.
What tactic are you referring to? The placing of an ERSB rating on the box? I'd agree that tactic doesn't work.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
incidentally 'fun' of anykind, any form, any shape, is 'addictive' the only way to remove addictive material or substance is to remove fun. the problem with addiction is NOT the external, its the internal. Some people have addictive personalities that can be treated, but removing all aspects of fun from everyones enviroment is not how the problem is solved.
4. I dont care either, I know better. But yes, violence in video game and how it affects childern was a mega monster ultra mega huge deal that makes the question of 'gambling' look like childs play. So how would you expect to get more traction on Gambling having a more impactful solution then what all the moms in the country came up with around violence? its not going to happen, at best you can predict a similar solution to what was come up with on the question of violence. More over, every time the subject comes up the Moms are going to be asking....why are kids playing this game anyway? its about killing
so in short...why the fuck are people talking about protecting kid from gambling in a game they should not be allowed to play in the fucking first place becuase of the violence!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
what is the current PEGI rating for Battlefront 2? now tell me how much you are invested in this topic because you want to protect the kids
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The government puts limits on who, how, and where gambling can be profited from. Gambling is one of the most lucrative types of business.
Lucrative ways to make money usually has a way of attracting Bad people who do Bad things.
Secondly if video game addiction becomes a big enough problem. You can bet dollars to doughnuts that there will be regulation surrounding it. Like pretty much every other industry, regulation will be placed on the producers and the sellers, not on the consumer.
4. If we can have secure online banking, I'm sure humans can come up with a better solution than ERSB labels.
Before violent video games or TV for that matter, little boys were playing cops n robbers, Cowboys n Indians etc. etc. etc.
IMHO violence runs a lot deeper than what we are exposed to by electronic mediums.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
For me, it really brought to light what those guys had to go through. Heck it was tough in a video game, I can't imagine how it must of been i real life.
I'm not a religious guy, but I pray for those people.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
PEGI 16 means people under the age of 16 are not supposed to play Battlefield 2.
so the question is this? is all this concern about 'kids' being exposed to gambling really being that honest? I dont think so, becaue the very game that brought this up in the first place kids are not supposed to be playing!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1. BF2 is the game that started all this, kids are not allowed to play that game in the first place. So how serious do you think people HONESTLY are about protecting kids from gambling? i dont buy it for a second.
2. Moms all over the country years ago started a campagin against violence in video games, they were popular, they were huge and the BEST they got was what? PEGI. So how successful do you really think 'Moms against gambling in games kids arent supposed to play in first place' is going to actually be?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2. The moms didn't get what they wanted, but the video game industry did.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
2. every single solitary time you bring this subject up to any legal person or lay person the FIRST question out of their mouth is going to be 'but kids are not supposed to play the games that have actual gambling in them currently so WTF'?. I know we are pretending we actually decided to 'bring it up' but I am just saying if this gets traction, the question of violence is going to come up as well.
now here yet another question for you, gambling for 'funbucks' is not addictive, its only addictive if the value exchange is related to man made currency. something that most kids dont even understand at an eraly age but yet by magic currency in the form of dollars instead of in the form of 'fun bucks' fires off a chemical reaction that is a medical condition similar to the effects of sugar?
seriously?
there is a MUCH easier solution to this problem
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I don't agree loot boxes are teh same thing as bosses dropping loot. Anybody making that argument is stretching. Why? Maybe they hate traditional games or actually like the loot boxes? Personally, I like some randomness in games. I don't want to hit for X everytime, nor do I want hte boss or monsters to drop the same things when they die. There's a lot more I can say. I would like to see dungeons change over time in a cause-effect way with strong AI in the background. I'd like to see them change their tactics too, so fights aren't rinse/repeat. I like to explore. I like engrossing worlds. I'm not just in it for the fun, I'm in it to be immersed in a world halfway believable.
I agree wit hthe posters who say be careful what you ask government to do. YOu may be young or you may be authoritarian, either way the government just loves to have more reasons to tax us. Another thing to regulate is another reason for them to feel important and demand higher taxes. It's ALWAYS to protect us and make the world better. When they finally put us in chains it'll be for our own protection. We'll even voluntarily chain ourselves because we think it's good for us!!!! That's how f****** up it all is. Think on this for a while before dismissing it as a conservative rant.
I'm only mildly conservative on social issues anyway. Mostly in the middle.