Some things the government controls are not good for anyone like the food pyramid. It is just there to make corporations money.
I do think some things need regulation. A few things from the past that come to mind are Tetraethyllead gasoline and Radon.
We still have large quantities of lead in our bodies from people who sold leaded gasoline knowing it was going into the air and was poison to humans. Who knows what impact this type of thing has on human behavior.
Radon is obviously radiation and was rushed into everyday use as it was thought the energy it produced was healthy for humans.
I'm sure things are being introduced into society now that are just as harmful. IT's difficult to compare gambling loot boxes or killing things in video games to things like that.
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
"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"
How in the world did you come to that conclusion?
My 81 year old mother has a computer and she has a computer for one reason only. It's the only thing she has ever done on a computer period.
My mother plays offline slots machines on the computer for funbucks. She used to go to the Casino's
She didn't play for the money then and she doesn't play for the money now.
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
"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"
How in the world did you come to that conclusion?
My 81 year old mother has a computer and she has a computer for one reason only. It's the only thing she has ever done on a computer period.
My mother plays offline slots machines on the computer for funbucks. She used to go to the Casino's
She didn't play for the money then and she doesn't play for the money now.
how did I conclude that question?
money is a value exchange, you have something of value and so do I, we change and use money as currency of measurement.
Exchanging Value for an RNG outcome of value is common place in gaming. its basically a core part of gaming.
I have value (my time, my attention) I spend that value to get value (a +1 sword) which I may or may not get out of the box. That is standard game play that is everywhere and games could not exist without it.
but for some reason in your mind, if the value exchange is money. Then suddenly it becomes a bio-chemical medical problem similar to Sugar?
On a separate note: I play video games for about 20 hours a week. I have a good job, I take care of myself and I am happy. Am I addicted?
your mother likes games just like we do and for the same reason we do, but you think once money and specifically not funbuck but legally backed securities then suddenly biochemistry kicks in
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.
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
"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"
How in the world did you come to that conclusion?
My 81 year old mother has a computer and she has a computer for one reason only. It's the only thing she has ever done on a computer period.
My mother plays offline slots machines on the computer for funbucks. She used to go to the Casino's
She didn't play for the money then and she doesn't play for the money now.
how did I conclude that question?
money is a value exchange, you have something of value and so do I, we change and use money as currency of measurement.
Exchanging Value for an RNG outcome of value is common place in gaming. its basically a core part of gaming.
I have value (my time, my attention) I spend that value to get value (a +1 sword) which I may or may not get out of the box. That is standard game play that is everywhere and games could not exist without it.
but for some reason in your mind, if the value exchange is money. Then suddenly it becomes a bio-chemical medical problem similar to Sugar?
On a separate note: I play video games for about 20 hours a week. I have a good job, I take care of myself and I am happy. Am I addicted?
your mother likes games just like we do and for the same reason we do, but you think once money and specifically not funbuck but legally backed securities then suddenly biochemistry kicks in
"gambling for funbucks is not addictive its only addictive if the value exchange is related to man made currency"
Your conclusion is totally false
"but for some reason in your mind, if the value exchange is money. Then suddenly it becomes a bio-chemical medical problem similar to Sugar?"
lol I hate to break it to you but you have no idea what in my mind.
The addiction has nothing to do with money. Money has everything to do with the exploitation of the addiction.
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
"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"
How in the world did you come to that conclusion?
My 81 year old mother has a computer and she has a computer for one reason only. It's the only thing she has ever done on a computer period.
My mother plays offline slots machines on the computer for funbucks. She used to go to the Casino's
She didn't play for the money then and she doesn't play for the money now.
how did I conclude that question?
money is a value exchange, you have something of value and so do I, we change and use money as currency of measurement.
Exchanging Value for an RNG outcome of value is common place in gaming. its basically a core part of gaming.
I have value (my time, my attention) I spend that value to get value (a +1 sword) which I may or may not get out of the box. That is standard game play that is everywhere and games could not exist without it.
but for some reason in your mind, if the value exchange is money. Then suddenly it becomes a bio-chemical medical problem similar to Sugar?
On a separate note: I play video games for about 20 hours a week. I have a good job, I take care of myself and I am happy. Am I addicted?
your mother likes games just like we do and for the same reason we do, but you think once money and specifically not funbuck but legally backed securities then suddenly biochemistry kicks in
"gambling for funbucks is not addictive its only addictive if the value exchange is related to man made currency"
Your conclusion is totally false
"but for some reason in your mind, if the value exchange is money. Then suddenly it becomes a bio-chemical medical problem similar to Sugar?"
lol I hate to break it to you but you have no idea what in my mind.
The addiction has nothing to do with money. Money has everything to do with the exploitation of the addiction.
no I am not making that assertion, I am suggesting YOU are.
YOU by proxy are suggesting that ONLY when money backed by a goverment comes into play then automagically the same thing you were doing without money becomes an addiction, if its Funbucks or if its just time or if its the risk of your character getting shot, then its fine but RNG ONLY becomes an addiction when money backed by a goverment? its silly.
I think that is absurd and really hard to proove
GAMES ARE RNG......a great part of gaming is RNG. so is RNG the addiction or is it just RNG when value in the form of money is involved?
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.
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
"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"
How in the world did you come to that conclusion?
My 81 year old mother has a computer and she has a computer for one reason only. It's the only thing she has ever done on a computer period.
My mother plays offline slots machines on the computer for funbucks. She used to go to the Casino's
She didn't play for the money then and she doesn't play for the money now.
how did I conclude that question?
money is a value exchange, you have something of value and so do I, we change and use money as currency of measurement.
Exchanging Value for an RNG outcome of value is common place in gaming. its basically a core part of gaming.
I have value (my time, my attention) I spend that value to get value (a +1 sword) which I may or may not get out of the box. That is standard game play that is everywhere and games could not exist without it.
but for some reason in your mind, if the value exchange is money. Then suddenly it becomes a bio-chemical medical problem similar to Sugar?
On a separate note: I play video games for about 20 hours a week. I have a good job, I take care of myself and I am happy. Am I addicted?
your mother likes games just like we do and for the same reason we do, but you think once money and specifically not funbuck but legally backed securities then suddenly biochemistry kicks in
"gambling for funbucks is not addictive its only addictive if the value exchange is related to man made currency"
Your conclusion is totally false
"but for some reason in your mind, if the value exchange is money. Then suddenly it becomes a bio-chemical medical problem similar to Sugar?"
lol I hate to break it to you but you have no idea what in my mind.
The addiction has nothing to do with money. Money has everything to do with the exploitation of the addiction.
no I am not making that assertion, I am suggesting YOU are.
YOU by proxy are suggesting that ONLY when money backed by a goverment comes into play then automagically the same thing you were doing without money becomes an addiction, if its Funbucks or if its just time or if its the risk of your character getting shot, then its fine but RNG ONLY becomes an addiction when money backed by a goverment? its silly.
I think that is absurd and really hard to proove
GAMES ARE RNG......a great part of gaming is RNG. so is RNG the addiction or is it just RNG when value in the form of money is involved?
What I am talking about now has zero to do with government or anything government does.
When a person is addicted to gambling, they are not gambling for the money.
If you can't grasp that concept, I can't help you.
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
"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"
How in the world did you come to that conclusion?
My 81 year old mother has a computer and she has a computer for one reason only. It's the only thing she has ever done on a computer period.
My mother plays offline slots machines on the computer for funbucks. She used to go to the Casino's
She didn't play for the money then and she doesn't play for the money now.
how did I conclude that question?
money is a value exchange, you have something of value and so do I, we change and use money as currency of measurement.
Exchanging Value for an RNG outcome of value is common place in gaming. its basically a core part of gaming.
I have value (my time, my attention) I spend that value to get value (a +1 sword) which I may or may not get out of the box. That is standard game play that is everywhere and games could not exist without it.
but for some reason in your mind, if the value exchange is money. Then suddenly it becomes a bio-chemical medical problem similar to Sugar?
On a separate note: I play video games for about 20 hours a week. I have a good job, I take care of myself and I am happy. Am I addicted?
your mother likes games just like we do and for the same reason we do, but you think once money and specifically not funbuck but legally backed securities then suddenly biochemistry kicks in
"gambling for funbucks is not addictive its only addictive if the value exchange is related to man made currency"
Your conclusion is totally false
"but for some reason in your mind, if the value exchange is money. Then suddenly it becomes a bio-chemical medical problem similar to Sugar?"
lol I hate to break it to you but you have no idea what in my mind.
The addiction has nothing to do with money. Money has everything to do with the exploitation of the addiction.
no I am not making that assertion, I am suggesting YOU are.
YOU by proxy are suggesting that ONLY when money backed by a goverment comes into play then automagically the same thing you were doing without money becomes an addiction, if its Funbucks or if its just time or if its the risk of your character getting shot, then its fine but RNG ONLY becomes an addiction when money backed by a goverment? its silly.
I think that is absurd and really hard to proove
GAMES ARE RNG......a great part of gaming is RNG. so is RNG the addiction or is it just RNG when value in the form of money is involved?
What I am talking about now has zero to do with government or anything government does.
When a person is addicted to gambling, they are not gambling for the money.
If you can't grasp that concept, I can't help you.
then if money isnt a key ingredient for someone to be addicted to gambling then its RNG for reward.
which also just so happens to be a key REQUIREMENT for a good game.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
It has been argued in academics over the history of games that it point of games is for one in a safe way test their skills against randomness.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
It has been argued in academics over the history of games that it point of games is for one in a safe way test their skills against randomness.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
Which is a completely separate issue from lootbox monetization. RNG in games isn't inherently bad, unless used in a terrible way. Case in point: the aforementioned lootbox being one example of a terrible use of RNG.
Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
It has been argued in academics over the history of games that it point of games is for one in a safe way test their skills against randomness.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
Which is a completely separate issue from lootbox monetization. RNG in games isn't inherently bad, unless used in a terrible way. Case in point: the aforementioned lootbox being one example of a terrible use of RNG.
but laserit does not agree with you on that. I have been argueing with him for a day based on how you see it and then understood that he does not agree with you on that point.
because I dont want to re-type it all, if you want to see my view on the monization part of it read some of the previous posts. I think its absurd to suggest because monization is involved THAT is what makes it a medical condition related to addiction.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
It has been argued in academics over the history of games that it point of games is for one in a safe way test their skills against randomness.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
It has been argued in academics over the history of games that it point of games is for one in a safe way test their skills against randomness.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
It's good if you aren't paying for it in game.
yes but laserit does NOT agree with that point and clarified that with me.
his position is that its addictive REGARDLESS of the money. I think its absurd to suggest that its ONLY addictive if money is involved.
so we actually kinda agree I guess.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
It has been argued in academics over the history of games that it point of games is for one in a safe way test their skills against randomness.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
It's good if you aren't paying for it in game.
yes but laserit does NOT agree with that point and clarified that with me.
his position is that its addictive REGARDLESS of the money. I think its absurd to suggest that its ONLY addictive if money is involved.
so we actually kinda agree I guess.
Human psychology varies. it could become more addictive with real money for some because it is bigger thrill.
But I think the the problem is the side effect, but now which one is more addictive. For example heroin is more dangerous than marijuana because it cause more harm.
Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
It has been argued in academics over the history of games that it point of games is for one in a safe way test their skills against randomness.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
It's good if you aren't paying for it in game.
yes but laserit does NOT agree with that point and clarified that with me.
his position is that its addictive REGARDLESS of the money. I think its absurd to suggest that its ONLY addictive if money is involved.
so we actually kinda agree I guess.
Human psychology varies. it could become more addictive with real money for some because it is bigger thrill.
But I think the the problem is the side effect, but now which one is more addictive. For example heroin is more dangerous than marijuana because it cause more harm.
no I think absurd.
Look the argument can and HAS been made that video games themselves are addictive. so trying to make the argument that gambling, but not just any gambling but gambling that involves money is more addictive then video games themselves is going to be a real hard sell to anyone who has any medical background at all. Money doesn't automagically create a fucking medical condition.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I've been away from this discussion for a month, it's amusing to see how the fundamental understanding of gambling still hasn't sunk in for certain posters.
I've been away from this discussion for a month, it's amusing to see how the fundamental understanding of gambling still hasn't sunk in for certain posters.
yes I know.
and there are those who are against gambling who feel money is the problem there are others who are against gambling who think money is NOT the problem. and then there is me who thinks neither situation is a problem from a goverment standpoint
so the conversation is complex and requires a lot of attention to be fair. its not simple and it does require people to put on their smartest hat and not be intellectually lazy about it (not saying you or anyone here is, just saying it requires people to 'man up')
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
It has been argued in academics over the history of games that it point of games is for one in a safe way test their skills against randomness.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
Which is a completely separate issue from lootbox monetization. RNG in games isn't inherently bad, unless used in a terrible way. Case in point: the aforementioned lootbox being one example of a terrible use of RNG.
but laserit does not agree with you on that. I have been argueing with him for a day based on how you see it and then understood that he does not agree with you on that point.
because I dont want to re-type it all, if you want to see my view on the monization part of it read some of the previous posts. I think its absurd to suggest because monization is involved THAT is what makes it a medical condition related to addiction.
That's not what I said.
I said that RNG isn't inherently bad, it depends upon how it's used. That's true for many things.
Tobacco isn't inherently bad, but if you dry it, roll it, and smoke it, it's bad for you. Thus, regulation of tobacco as a smoking product.
Whether or not the item is inherently detrimental is irrelevant, it's the effect of its usage that's always been the cause for regulations.
I'm not interested in paying to get an advantage over anyone else and playing games where I'm disadvantaged because I don't pay as much as others isn't appealing either. If certain advantages can only be gained from RNG lootboxes then no matter how much I pay there's no guarantee I will get those advantages, that's a type of monetization which makes me avoid playing even if I find the game interesting.
I want to know how much I need to pay in order play a game, without anyone having an advantage over others that wasn't earned by playing the game. That is the price I use to judge whether or not to buy a game. It's fine by me, but not necessary, if the game has a free to play option to attract new players, where those who don't pay are disadvantaged in some ways.
Why people are willing to pay a lot of money for advantages is puzzling to me. I wouldn't want to have advantages over others that weren't earned in-game, even if they were given to me for free. It's even stranger when people pay for a chance at an advantage(lootboxes), they have no idea how much it will cost to get it in the end.
It doesn't seem sustainable long term to have business models which cause many of your customers to publicly voice their dislike for your product, then again EA are still in business so who knows.
Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
It has been argued in academics over the history of games that it point of games is for one in a safe way test their skills against randomness.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
Which is a completely separate issue from lootbox monetization. RNG in games isn't inherently bad, unless used in a terrible way. Case in point: the aforementioned lootbox being one example of a terrible use of RNG.
but laserit does not agree with you on that. I have been argueing with him for a day based on how you see it and then understood that he does not agree with you on that point.
because I dont want to re-type it all, if you want to see my view on the monization part of it read some of the previous posts. I think its absurd to suggest because monization is involved THAT is what makes it a medical condition related to addiction.
That's not what I said.
I said that RNG isn't inherently bad, it depends upon how it's used. That's true for many things.
Tobacco isn't inherently bad, but if you dry it, roll it, and smoke it, it's bad for you. Thus, regulation of tobacco as a smoking product.
Whether or not the item is inherently detrimental is irrelevant, it's the effect of its usage that's always been the cause for regulations.
if I am addicted to video games and my personal relationships go to shit and I loose my job, its usage has an effect does it not?
Alcohol is addictive and it can affect my personal realtionships, my bank account, my job and the safety of others, should it be banned and regulated as well?
Dopamine is addictive and it can affect my personal realtionships, my bank account, my job and the safety of others. Should we ban dopamine?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
It has been argued in academics over the history of games that it point of games is for one in a safe way test their skills against randomness.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
Which is a completely separate issue from lootbox monetization. RNG in games isn't inherently bad, unless used in a terrible way. Case in point: the aforementioned lootbox being one example of a terrible use of RNG.
but laserit does not agree with you on that. I have been argueing with him for a day based on how you see it and then understood that he does not agree with you on that point.
because I dont want to re-type it all, if you want to see my view on the monization part of it read some of the previous posts. I think its absurd to suggest because monization is involved THAT is what makes it a medical condition related to addiction.
That's not what I said.
I said that RNG isn't inherently bad, it depends upon how it's used. That's true for many things.
Tobacco isn't inherently bad, but if you dry it, roll it, and smoke it, it's bad for you. Thus, regulation of tobacco as a smoking product.
Whether or not the item is inherently detrimental is irrelevant, it's the effect of its usage that's always been the cause for regulations.
if I am addicted to video games and my personal relationships go to shit and I loose my job, its usage has an effect does it not?
Alcohol is addictive and it can affect my personal realtionships, my bank account, my job and the safety of others, should it be banned and regulated as well?
Dopamine is addictive and it can affect my personal realtionships, my bank account, my job and the safety of others. Should we ban dopamine?
Your reductio ad absurdum is not an effective counter-argument.
Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
It has been argued in academics over the history of games that it point of games is for one in a safe way test their skills against randomness.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
Which is a completely separate issue from lootbox monetization. RNG in games isn't inherently bad, unless used in a terrible way. Case in point: the aforementioned lootbox being one example of a terrible use of RNG.
but laserit does not agree with you on that. I have been argueing with him for a day based on how you see it and then understood that he does not agree with you on that point.
because I dont want to re-type it all, if you want to see my view on the monization part of it read some of the previous posts. I think its absurd to suggest because monization is involved THAT is what makes it a medical condition related to addiction.
That's not what I said.
I said that RNG isn't inherently bad, it depends upon how it's used. That's true for many things.
Tobacco isn't inherently bad, but if you dry it, roll it, and smoke it, it's bad for you. Thus, regulation of tobacco as a smoking product.
Whether or not the item is inherently detrimental is irrelevant, it's the effect of its usage that's always been the cause for regulations.
if I am addicted to video games and my personal relationships go to shit and I loose my job, its usage has an effect does it not?
Alcohol is addictive and it can affect my personal realtionships, my bank account, my job and the safety of others, should it be banned and regulated as well?
Dopamine is addictive and it can affect my personal realtionships, my bank account, my job and the safety of others. Should we ban dopamine?
Your reductio ad absurdum is not an effective counter-argument.
addiction is related to dopamine. dopamine is what we need in our brain to live as well as be happy. Without it we can literally die with low levels of it we are unhappy.
we can not ban all things that are addictive (which by definition has to have a material negative impact on a person or others around them). So really the entire conversation about trying to ban addictive substances is in of itself a silly one to begin with.
but that much aside, if gambling is addictive, money or not, for it to be addictive it WILL have a negative impact on the person. but what right does the government have to ban me from producing a negative impact on myself in the first place?
so multiple holes that require 1. a person to not be intellectually lazy when addressing and 2. complete honesty.
i am not suggesting people are, I am just reminding people this is big boy stuff
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Alcohol is regulated. Dopamine producing drugs are also regulated.
and it should be. but not because its addictive.
addiction is directly related to dopamine, everything that makes you happy as a reward is directly related to dopamine.
so where is the line? should the government ensure thru legislation that I wear the proper gear when going out in the cold or should I learn that from my mother?
Can I be allowed to spend my money as I see fit even if it makes me broke?
A video game has been argued to be highly addictive and highly damaging to people who are addicted, so why gambling with money but not video games or gambling without money? because I will go broke? maybe the goverment should tell me what to spend money on?
come on guys...lets stop with the one liners and obfuscation lets either get to the meat of this or just drop the entire thing
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Yes at least partially because it's addictive. The other is about expected consequences. Caffeine is addictive. You do have caffeinergic receptors. However the consequences are normally not severe.
And no addiction is not directly related to dopamine. Addiction is related to disregulating recepters of which dopaminergic is just one
Video games have only just recently been recognized as problematic. It will be several more years before their severity is fully understood.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
I do think some things need regulation. A few things from the past that come to mind are Tetraethyllead gasoline and Radon.
We still have large quantities of lead in our bodies from people who sold leaded gasoline knowing it was going into the air and was poison to humans. Who knows what impact this type of thing has on human behavior.
Radon is obviously radiation and was rushed into everyday use as it was thought the energy it produced was healthy for humans.
I'm sure things are being introduced into society now that are just as harmful. IT's difficult to compare gambling loot boxes or killing things in video games to things like that.
How in the world did you come to that conclusion?
My 81 year old mother has a computer and she has a computer for one reason only. It's the only thing she has ever done on a computer period.
My mother plays offline slots machines on the computer for funbucks. She used to go to the Casino's
She didn't play for the money then and she doesn't play for the money now.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
money is a value exchange, you have something of value and so do I, we change and use money as currency of measurement.
Exchanging Value for an RNG outcome of value is common place in gaming. its basically a core part of gaming.
I have value (my time, my attention) I spend that value to get value (a +1 sword) which I may or may not get out of the box. That is standard game play that is everywhere and games could not exist without it.
but for some reason in your mind, if the value exchange is money. Then suddenly it becomes a bio-chemical medical problem similar to Sugar?
On a separate note: I play video games for about 20 hours a week. I have a good job, I take care of myself and I am happy. Am I addicted?
your mother likes games just like we do and for the same reason we do, but you think once money and specifically not funbuck but legally backed securities then suddenly biochemistry kicks in
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Your conclusion is totally false
"but for some reason in your mind, if the value exchange is money. Then suddenly it becomes a bio-chemical medical problem similar to Sugar?"
lol I hate to break it to you but you have no idea what in my mind.
The addiction has nothing to do with money. Money has everything to do with the exploitation of the addiction.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
YOU by proxy are suggesting that ONLY when money backed by a goverment comes into play then automagically the same thing you were doing without money becomes an addiction, if its Funbucks or if its just time or if its the risk of your character getting shot, then its fine but RNG ONLY becomes an addiction when money backed by a goverment? its silly.
I think that is absurd and really hard to proove
GAMES ARE RNG......a great part of gaming is RNG. so is RNG the addiction or is it just RNG when value in the form of money is involved?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
When a person is addicted to gambling, they are not gambling for the money.
If you can't grasp that concept, I can't help you.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
which also just so happens to be a key REQUIREMENT for a good game.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
because I dont want to re-type it all, if you want to see my view on the monization part of it read some of the previous posts. I think its absurd to suggest because monization is involved THAT is what makes it a medical condition related to addiction.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
his position is that its addictive REGARDLESS of the money.
I think its absurd to suggest that its ONLY addictive if money is involved.
so we actually kinda agree I guess.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But I think the the problem is the side effect, but now which one is more addictive. For example heroin is more dangerous than marijuana because it cause more harm.
Look the argument can and HAS been made that video games themselves are addictive.
so trying to make the argument that gambling, but not just any gambling but gambling that involves money is more addictive then video games themselves is going to be a real hard sell to anyone who has any medical background at all. Money doesn't automagically create a fucking medical condition.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
and there are those who are against gambling who feel money is the problem there are others who are against gambling who think money is NOT the problem. and then there is me who thinks neither situation is a problem from a goverment standpoint
so the conversation is complex and requires a lot of attention to be fair. its not simple and it does require people to put on their smartest hat and not be intellectually lazy about it (not saying you or anyone here is, just saying it requires people to 'man up')
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I said that RNG isn't inherently bad, it depends upon how it's used. That's true for many things.
Tobacco isn't inherently bad, but if you dry it, roll it, and smoke it, it's bad for you. Thus, regulation of tobacco as a smoking product.
Whether or not the item is inherently detrimental is irrelevant, it's the effect of its usage that's always been the cause for regulations.
I want to know how much I need to pay in order play a game, without anyone having an advantage over others that wasn't earned by playing the game. That is the price I use to judge whether or not to buy a game. It's fine by me, but not necessary, if the game has a free to play option to attract new players, where those who don't pay are disadvantaged in some ways.
Why people are willing to pay a lot of money for advantages is puzzling to me. I wouldn't want to have advantages over others that weren't earned in-game, even if they were given to me for free. It's even stranger when people pay for a chance at an advantage(lootboxes), they have no idea how much it will cost to get it in the end.
It doesn't seem sustainable long term to have business models which cause many of your customers to publicly voice their dislike for your product, then again EA are still in business so who knows.
Alcohol is addictive and it can affect my personal realtionships, my bank account, my job and the safety of others, should it be banned and regulated as well?
Dopamine is addictive and it can affect my personal realtionships, my bank account, my job and the safety of others. Should we ban dopamine?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
dopamine is what we need in our brain to live as well as be happy. Without it we can literally die with low levels of it we are unhappy.
we can not ban all things that are addictive (which by definition has to have a material negative impact on a person or others around them). So really the entire conversation about trying to ban addictive substances is in of itself a silly one to begin with.
but that much aside, if gambling is addictive, money or not, for it to be addictive it WILL have a negative impact on the person. but what right does the government have to ban me from producing a negative impact on myself in the first place?
so multiple holes that require 1. a person to not be intellectually lazy when addressing and 2. complete honesty.
i am not suggesting people are, I am just reminding people this is big boy stuff
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Addiction is related to disregulating recepters. Dopaminergic receptors are just one type.
but not because its addictive.
addiction is directly related to dopamine, everything that makes you happy as a reward is directly related to dopamine.
so where is the line? should the government ensure thru legislation that I wear the proper gear when going out in the cold or should I learn that from my mother?
Can I be allowed to spend my money as I see fit even if it makes me broke?
A video game has been argued to be highly addictive and highly damaging to people who are addicted, so why gambling with money but not video games or gambling without money? because I will go broke? maybe the goverment should tell me what to spend money on?
come on guys...lets stop with the one liners and obfuscation lets either get to the meat of this or just drop the entire thing
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
And no addiction is not directly related to dopamine. Addiction is related to disregulating recepters of which dopaminergic is just one
Video games have only just recently been recognized as problematic. It will be several more years before their severity is fully understood.