Well look there, more ways for stupid consumers to be stupid. Want the best way to keep from getting fleeced.
STOP OPENING YOUR WALLET. simple and super effective.
Seems like a good way to never play any good games again.
Right, so all the games you already own that can be modded, means nothing I guess. Please, list where it is written that new games have to be bought the second they are released. If more waited for a major sale, the BUY in would be GREATLY REDUCED, however guess that does not matter either. Plus all would get the benefit of knowing what a games major issues are before hand, thus affording much better decision making. If a game has mechanics you do not agree with you can avoid said games completely and never lose money on it in the first place. To each their own.
Well look there, more ways for stupid consumers to be stupid. Want the best way to keep from getting fleeced.
STOP OPENING YOUR WALLET. simple and super effective.
Seems like a good way to never play any good games again.
Right, so all the games you already own that can be modded, means nothing I guess. Please, list where it is written that new games have to be bought the second they are released. If more waited for a major sale, the BUY in would be GREATLY REDUCED, however guess that does not matter either. Plus all would get the benefit of knowing what a games major issues are before hand, thus affording much better decision making. If a game has mechanics you do not agree with you can avoid said games completely and never lose money on it in the first place. To each their own.
The problem with that mentality is that if everyone did it, all the game developers would go out of business. You may not agree with certain monetization practices and that's totally fine but just saying 'don't spend money' is not useful.
I am all for any kind of regulation to limit exposure of this type of thing to kids. Dunno but I don't get the whole "parents should be parents" argument...it's kind of ludicrous as no one is suggesting they shouldn't be.
No one is saying the state should dictate to us how to raise our children or what our morals should be but we should have the tools and information necessary to do a decent job too.
Dunno but some people need to take the tinfoil hat off and realize all societies in some form or fashion influence our morals or acceptable behavior at least to some degree, it's unavoidable.
Sometimes I think some people have a romanticized idea of what the past was like and don't realize how bloody good we have it today so I can't help but think meh when I hear some of the arguments of how we are "losing" our freedom..lolz
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
No one ever puts a price tag on what it cost to put these bills up for a vote... the assumption is, it was all done for free. It cost the taxpayers a lot of money, diverged the government from addressing the issues they continue to avoid addressing, and often have piggy-back agendas that the public doesn't want pushed through.
There is no win in such legislation, which is why it's not the government's job to even address it. It's alright to buy an gun and kill people with it, but it's not alright to allow a 12 year old to use a credit card to buy a loot box. Just who let them have the credit card in the first place? Responsibility lies with the parents, not the government.
There are far more pressing and urgent matters to be dealt with than these petty little things and it highlights just why nothing of substance ever gets done in government without taking a decade or more. We're paying them to waste our money each and every day they avoid the real issues.
What kind of crack are you smoking? "It's alright to buy an gun and kill people with it, but it's not alright to allow a 12 year old to use a credit card to buy a loot box"
Last I checked it's a crime to kill except in self defense... Thats some solid lefty logic there. There is an age limit to buy guns, and charges are pressed all the time on adults that don't keep guns away from children that use them to commit a crime.
As far as I'm concerned loot boxes are gambling, and they should at the least charge the same taxes casinos pay - not counting native american casinos of course, not sure if they pay.
Tax the shit out of them, its the american way, it's illegal unless the gov't gets it's cut. I don't like that but why should loot boxes be any different?
I do agree that there are more important things to do, but this should not be a hard decision. Just because gov't is incompetent doesn't mean this couldnt be a 20 minute discussion & decision or brought to the ballot box by citizens like any other issue. Probably won't happen in most states, but no reason not to.
I say kudos to that legislature for seeing the derogative nature this crap has on gaming and gamer's.
I just wish they would take it even further into ALL realms of selling and buying BLIND,like card packs and keys to open chests or any other way devs have to get around actual loot boxes.
You do realize that cash shops run MMOs today.
Without cash shops - no MMOs.
How does that saying go - careful what you wish for, cause you just might get it.
But I have no problem with there being more clarity as far as what the % chances are for all loot etc...
Games should provide this information clearly on every purchase.
Not really true, mmo's survived and some did very well on subscriptions before, and they could again. Loot boxes are not the only thing in cash shops either, they are just the most predatory.
The State will protect you from evil loot boxes! The State will parent your children for you! The State will guide you! The State will provide for you! All hail the Almighty State!
Fortunately this type of mentality pretty much died out round about the Late Stone Age / Bronze Age allowing mankind to climb out of barbarism.
But hey scrap the military (its a state function), police - or are you advocating that "the state" shouldn't stop e.g. drug traffickers selling hard drugs to kids; schools (mostly state); courts; infrastructure etc. etc. etc. .......
Can there be to much control - absolutely; most countries though have found a balance. Most.
I say kudos to that legislature for seeing the derogative nature this crap has on gaming and gamer's.
I just wish they would take it even further into ALL realms of selling and buying BLIND,like card packs and keys to open chests or any other way devs have to get around actual loot boxes.
You do realize that cash shops run MMOs today.
Without cash shops - no MMOs.
How does that saying go - careful what you wish for, cause you just might get it.
But I have no problem with there being more clarity as far as what the % chances are for all loot etc...
Games should provide this information clearly on every purchase.
Not really true, mmo's survived and some did very well on subscriptions before, and they could again. Loot boxes are not the only thing in cash shops either, they are just the most predatory.
Awesome tired of the greedy companies like Trion Worlds, AKA BackStabbing company that ruins games like Arche Age one of the best games I ever played but ruined by Trion, when you spend like $300 for a costume, don't get it and then still get screwed over by constant server merges and game-play changes that effect the entire game at it's core.
I am all for any kind of regulation to limit exposure of this type of thing to kids. Dunno but I don't get the whole "parents should be parents" argument...it's kind of ludicrous as no one is suggesting they shouldn't be.
No one is saying the state should dictate to us how to raise our children or what our morals should be but we should have the tools and information necessary to do a decent job too.
Dunno but some people need to take the tinfoil hat off and realize all societies in some form or fashion influence our morals or acceptable behavior at least to some degree, it's unavoidable.
Sometimes I think some people have a romanticized idea of what the past was like and don't realize how bloody good we have it today so I can't help but think meh when I hear some of the arguments of how we are "losing" our freedom..lolz
You do not get it. You can not see that state force is unnecessary. You see state force as a good thing. You think that values imposed by the state are a good thing whether everyone agrees with those values or not.
Tools? The state needs to declare values so we know those values exist? poppycock
Culture is one thing which influences us all. Having a culture where state power is used to establish and mandate is a bad culture.
I have no idea what your concept of freedom is. My concept is freedom is where you have choices in your life as long as those choices do not infringe upon others.
My personal opinion, my choice, is to avoid play-to-win or lock box gimmicks. It should be a choice. The nanny state government is unnecessary and ultimately trouble. I do not need the state to make decisions for myself and my children are my decision, not theirs.
We do not need more government nor more stinking regulation of our lives. This dependency upon government to guide you or demand/interfere upon others is not an infinitesimal effect as the accumulation of all of this little regulations affects a vast majority of our lives. If it was just one law it could be a who-cares. Frankly, even one bad law should not be tolerated. People can not see state intrusion as unnecessary in something as innocent as games.
Authoritarian government is bad. We do not need authoritarian control of games. The world is not going to hell because of loot boxes. The world is going to hell with the growth and reach of authoritarian government.
Soo it is bad for them and should be age restricted
No. If you think loot boxes/trading cards will be a problem for your child then you stop them from partaking.
What I'm against is claiming it's bad for all children based on subjective morals.
Well, gambling is bad for everyone really, it's just worse for children as they're more impressionable and more easily manipulated with more of their life left to screw up. There is an absolute ton of evidence to support the notion that gambling is bad, but it's repeated gambling that causes the most problems and that is what lootboxes are setup to do.
There really isn't any evidence to support that they are more susceptible or more easily manipulated. I would suggest that adults lack of knowledge related to RNG and technology, as well as bias created through their life experiences would make them more susceptible.
My biggest problem with this whole thing is that it sets a precedent that has a more wide-spread impact. Like what about trading card games (physical and digital)? Do you now need to be 18 to purchase a pack of cards? What about sticker books like Panini that sell sticker packs? What about Monopoly at McDonald's? Technically they are all using the same style of mechanics in order to entice you to purchase their products. So while it might seem quirky and odd to some, what is the differentiating factor that you can draw a line and say these are explicitly different? That's a big problem.
There's ample evidence to support the idea that children are more susceptible to marketing and impulse buying than adults.... It's one of the reasons why Camel isn't advertising with their shaded animal mascot anymore.
McDonald's gives you game pieces as part of a meal. You're not paying for the pieces; in fact, you can't purchase pieces from McDonald's outright at all. That's the difference.
The best analogy for lootboxes is a casino that awards you in coins or other prizes that are not exchangeable for cash and is worth only what the casino tells you they're worth, which is subject to change at any moment for any reason whatsoever. They even retain the right to revoke your access to your own winnings for any reason at all, at any time.
I noticed you didn't mention trading cards, which is probably the less obscure example. So, based on your assessment of McDonald's, these companies can get around this gambling scenario by simply allowing people to purchase in-game currency which can be used for stuff and things, and when they do, they also get a free loot box?
As far as evidence goes, there isn't anything, and they haven't provided any evidence that in-game loot box purchases are pandemic with children. He uses the phrase "especially children", but we don't even know if children are purchasing them, and to what degree. It's basically unsupported, anecdotal evidence to support a theory and get less push-back. If you do push back, then you obviously don't care about the children, right?
The better comparison would be if they gave you something unrelated to the game and of known value. That's what you're paying for at McDonald's. The Big Mac. It's not part of the game, you can't play the Big Mac on the board. As laserit mentioned, those games pieces are absolutely free; that's why they're required to say no purchase necessary. You get one included with your meal for a limited time, still for the price of free. The McDonald's game piece is a free contest that comes with the product being sold; microtransactions are products themselves being sold, but only to be used exclusively with the other product you're using that's made by the dev, and even then only in the manner specifically prescribed by the devs and only for as long as they see fit.
Trading cards depend on factors outside of the control of the manufacturer to determine their value. Having a limited edition 10 card print would still be largely worthless if nobody has any clue who the player is on the card.
As for TCGs, those cards are the totality of the experience. There's nothing else (other than rules) to enjoy; without the cards, there is no hobby there.
Ok, let's not dance around McDonald's again.
What you say about trading cards is exactly the same issue here. The value of a card is subjective, but it's that subjective valuation of the collective which makes it valuable. However, if the collective determines that these 10 cards have monetary value, then buying these card packs could be equally as detrimental as gambling. For instance, Rhonda Rousey spent $1300 on WoW TCG card packs in an attempt to get one of the cards that gives you an in-game mount. So if there is something in the card packs that someone views as inherently valuable, then they will pay to get it, whether it be a rookie card of their favorite player, or something in-game.
As far as TCGs go, the cards are the totality of the experience, you're right. So the value in those cards is based on the function of that card. For instance, the Black Lotus in Magic is almost legendary in it's value to the game. In fact, it's valued somewhere in the area of $27,000 based on Google. So the monetary value of that might entice some people to buy card packs, where Magic players might buy card packs simply to try to get the card for their own deck. So, while the cards are the totality of the experience, it's not as simple as just purchasing a starter pack and being done with it. In order to be competitive, you must buy card packs and improve your collection, or you will never be competitive.
We can agree to disagree, and I'm fine with that. I'm perfectly fine with publishing odds. I do take offense to someone insulting my intelligence, though, and telling me that kids are being corrupted by these mechanics when there is nothing be anecdotal evidence to support it. I actually find it hilarious because people are screaming to ban this type of mechanic for the children, meanwhlie, a THIRD of underage children (grade 8-12) have consumed alcohol in the last 30 days, 20% have engaged in binge drinking. If we apply this same logic, then we should ban alcohol, right? Oh yeah! That doesn't work, lol. Anyway, like I said, I'm perfectly fine with all the publishing of odds and information. I think it should be there. If you think it's for the kids and not simply a political play, though, I... I can't even.
We can agree to disagree, and I'm fine with that. I'm perfectly fine with publishing odds. I do take offense to someone insulting my intelligence, though, and telling me that kids are being corrupted by these mechanics when there is nothing be anecdotal evidence to support it. I actually find it hilarious because people are screaming to ban this type of mechanic for the children, meanwhlie, a THIRD of underage children (grade 8-12) have consumed alcohol in the last 30 days, 20% have engaged in binge drinking. If we apply this same logic, then we should ban alcohol, right? Oh yeah! That doesn't work, lol. Anyway, like I said, I'm perfectly fine with all the publishing of odds and information. I think it should be there. If you think it's for the kids and not simply a political play, though, I... I can't even.
I just want to jump in on this bit here.
There is an absolute shit ton of evidence to explain why gambling is bad. It is not restricted to children, gambling is bad for everybody.
Gambling becomes a problem when gambling is repeated regularly. Beyond the material issues of losing money and all the associated problems with that, the primary cause for concern is that gambling on a regular basis physically alters our brains. I just want that to sink in for a bit. Our actual brains alter the way they work when we gamble regularly. The research shows that a gambler's brain is physically altered in the same way that a drug addicts brain is altered.
That, in and of itself, should be all the reason you need to ban children from gambling.
This should also give you some insight into why some sorts of gambling are regulated (casinos) and others are not (trading cards). Whilst trading card packs are indeed a form of gambling, it is difficult to repeat that gambling on a regular basis (limited stock in stores). It is also not very prevalent, and governments tend not to regulate in the interest of protection unless they're protecting a decent amount of people. With lootboxes, millions of people participate on a daily basis, so it is very prevalent and therefore the potential for harm is massively bigger than trading cards.
If you want to use the child angle, there are still valid reasons. First, a child's brain has greater neuroplasticity than an adults. What this means is that the negative effects of gambling kick in quicker in a child than they do in the average adult. Second, children are, on average, more easily manipulated than adults. There have been some interesting studies released recently about how children and young adults don't develop the ability to properly assess risk and impact until much later than we think. Search for studies about raising the age of adolescence.
Now, having said all that, you are correct in that there are far greater issues facing young people than predatory monetisation of video games. However, I don't think that our governments are only capable of doing one thing at a time, so whilst lootboxes are small potatoes compared to child poverty, unsuitable/failing education systems, drug problems and the like, I still believe the government is capable of tackling all of them at once.
With lootboxes, it's not even a difficult issue to solve. Lootboxes simply need to be brought inline with other forms of regulated gambling. The regulations already exist, the safeguards already exist, the research already exists. All we need to do is clearly define looboxes in a legal sense and then we're good to go.
We can agree to disagree, and I'm fine with that. I'm perfectly fine with publishing odds. I do take offense to someone insulting my intelligence, though, and telling me that kids are being corrupted by these mechanics when there is nothing be anecdotal evidence to support it. I actually find it hilarious because people are screaming to ban this type of mechanic for the children, meanwhlie, a THIRD of underage children (grade 8-12) have consumed alcohol in the last 30 days, 20% have engaged in binge drinking. If we apply this same logic, then we should ban alcohol, right? Oh yeah! That doesn't work, lol. Anyway, like I said, I'm perfectly fine with all the publishing of odds and information. I think it should be there. If you think it's for the kids and not simply a political play, though, I... I can't even.
I just want to jump in on this bit here.
There is an absolute shit ton of evidence to explain why gambling is bad. It is not restricted to children, gambling is bad for everybody.
Gambling becomes a problem when gambling is repeated regularly. Beyond the material issues of losing money and all the associated problems with that, the primary cause for concern is that gambling on a regular basis physically alters our brains. I just want that to sink in for a bit. Our actual brains alter the way they work when we gamble regularly. The research shows that a gambler's brain is physically altered in the same way that a drug addicts brain is altered.
That, in and of itself, should be all the reason you need to ban children from gambling.
This should also give you some insight into why some sorts of gambling are regulated (casinos) and others are not (trading cards). Whilst trading card packs are indeed a form of gambling, it is difficult to repeat that gambling on a regular basis (limited stock in stores). It is also not very prevalent, and governments tend not to regulate in the interest of protection unless they're protecting a decent amount of people. With lootboxes, millions of people participate on a daily basis, so it is very prevalent and therefore the potential for harm is massively bigger than trading cards.
If you want to use the child angle, there are still valid reasons. First, a child's brain has greater neuroplasticity than an adults. What this means is that the negative effects of gambling kick in quicker in a child than they do in the average adult. Second, children are, on average, more easily manipulated than adults. There have been some interesting studies released recently about how children and young adults don't develop the ability to properly assess risk and impact until much later than we think. Search for studies about raising the age of adolescence.
Now, having said all that, you are correct in that there are far greater issues facing young people than predatory monetisation of video games. However, I don't think that our governments are only capable of doing one thing at a time, so whilst lootboxes are small potatoes compared to child poverty, unsuitable/failing education systems, drug problems and the like, I still believe the government is capable of tackling all of them at once.
With lootboxes, it's not even a difficult issue to solve. Lootboxes simply need to be brought inline with other forms of regulated gambling. The regulations already exist, the safeguards already exist, the research already exists. All we need to do is clearly define looboxes in a legal sense and then we're good to go.
I don't blame you for jumping in, I think it's a very important topic because it has significant implications should others adopt it. What you've said is interesting, but I completely disagree. First of all, the bill itself draws very vague lines around the issue, as politicians tend to do. It talks about how there are examples where you obtain something from a loot box and then are able to convert that into a monetary return. That's completely true. There are. However, this isn't the case in like, what? 99% of games? Fuck, it's probably less than 0.01% of games that allow you to convert it to cash INSIDE the game. So let me ask you this. What does this mean for BOE items in WoW or any other MMO? If I can TECHNICALLY convert that item into cash through a third party black market site, this bill will impact that game.
Secondly, the bill makes reference to the WHO's designation of "Gaming Disorder" as a real things. However, that has nothing to do with loot boxes, that has to do with the psychology of games in general. So if the WHO is indicating that gaming disorder is a real thing, and it has to do with how games affect our psychology, then should games not be banned entirely? No, because that's nonsense. However, that is 100% what's happening. With or without loot boxes, kids are still subjected to the mental health issues that may arise from prolonged exposure to games. So parents allowing their children to have unmetered access to games are, effectively, exposing their children to that risk. Loot boxes don't actually have anything to do with that disorder, specifically.
Third, the speicifc language in the bill is highly conflictive and it lends itself to actually being diluted. Specifically, the labeling requirement is retarded. You are not able to modify a game at any time to include any sort of loot box style mechanic. Soooooooo, what? So every game published hereafter in Hawaii will contain a sticker saying it MAY contain loot boxes. It'll be like the epilepsy warnings, lol. Effectively, even if a publisher doesn't plan on offering paid loot boxes, the vague description means that they cannot avoid adding this to their packaging. What if I give DLC with purchase? Like a gun? What if I include WoW style looting mechanics? Shit, what if I just have randomized loot boxes that don't even require you to purchase anything? Essentially, this bill dilutes the real issue into something so homogonized that it applies to every single game on the fucking planet. It's unfortunate to say, but it's true.
Furthermore, at a competitive level, should this bill be implemented, unless it's worldwide it will directly impact competitive gamers in the regions where it is implemented. Why? Well, because Activision isn't going to sit there bent over and wait for you to take $4 Billion out of their pockets every year. They'll sell everywhere they can, and when you implement this elsewhere, they'll simply implement more aggressive, better rewards where they can, making other regions even more competitive than you. Even if it should go worldwide, what does this do? Nothing. It means we get direct-to-consumer sales of in-game items at inflated prices.
Again, it's not a solution to the PROBLEM. What we're seeing here is a pissed off gamer who happens to be a politician taking something they dislike in a game and making a bill. How does this solve the issue of mental health issues in games? It doesn't. That's my point now and always has been since this all started. This solves exactly nothing.
We can agree to disagree, and I'm fine with that. I'm perfectly fine with publishing odds. I do take offense to someone insulting my intelligence, though, and telling me that kids are being corrupted by these mechanics when there is nothing be anecdotal evidence to support it. I actually find it hilarious because people are screaming to ban this type of mechanic for the children, meanwhlie, a THIRD of underage children (grade 8-12) have consumed alcohol in the last 30 days, 20% have engaged in binge drinking. If we apply this same logic, then we should ban alcohol, right? Oh yeah! That doesn't work, lol. Anyway, like I said, I'm perfectly fine with all the publishing of odds and information. I think it should be there. If you think it's for the kids and not simply a political play, though, I... I can't even.
I just want to jump in on this bit here.
There is an absolute shit ton of evidence to explain why gambling is bad. It is not restricted to children, gambling is bad for everybody.
Gambling becomes a problem when gambling is repeated regularly. Beyond the material issues of losing money and all the associated problems with that, the primary cause for concern is that gambling on a regular basis physically alters our brains. I just want that to sink in for a bit. Our actual brains alter the way they work when we gamble regularly. The research shows that a gambler's brain is physically altered in the same way that a drug addicts brain is altered.
That, in and of itself, should be all the reason you need to ban children from gambling.
This should also give you some insight into why some sorts of gambling are regulated (casinos) and others are not (trading cards). Whilst trading card packs are indeed a form of gambling, it is difficult to repeat that gambling on a regular basis (limited stock in stores). It is also not very prevalent, and governments tend not to regulate in the interest of protection unless they're protecting a decent amount of people. With lootboxes, millions of people participate on a daily basis, so it is very prevalent and therefore the potential for harm is massively bigger than trading cards.
If you want to use the child angle, there are still valid reasons. First, a child's brain has greater neuroplasticity than an adults. What this means is that the negative effects of gambling kick in quicker in a child than they do in the average adult. Second, children are, on average, more easily manipulated than adults. There have been some interesting studies released recently about how children and young adults don't develop the ability to properly assess risk and impact until much later than we think. Search for studies about raising the age of adolescence.
Now, having said all that, you are correct in that there are far greater issues facing young people than predatory monetisation of video games. However, I don't think that our governments are only capable of doing one thing at a time, so whilst lootboxes are small potatoes compared to child poverty, unsuitable/failing education systems, drug problems and the like, I still believe the government is capable of tackling all of them at once.
With lootboxes, it's not even a difficult issue to solve. Lootboxes simply need to be brought inline with other forms of regulated gambling. The regulations already exist, the safeguards already exist, the research already exists. All we need to do is clearly define looboxes in a legal sense and then we're good to go.
I don't blame you for jumping in, I think it's a very important topic because it has significant implications should others adopt it. What you've said is interesting, but I completely disagree.
<snip>
Again, it's not a solution to the PROBLEM. What we're seeing here is a pissed off gamer who happens to be a politician taking something they dislike in a game and making a bill. How does this solve the issue of mental health issues in games? It doesn't. That's my point now and always has been since this all started. This solves exactly nothing.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood the point of your posts. I thought you were saying that you didn't think lootboxes / gambling was a problem, rather than arguing the specifics of this bill.
I'll admit, I haven't looked at the specifics of the Hawaiian bill, only the highlights. I'm in the UK so this has no effect on me at all! From what you've written, it sounds like the bill isn't actually addressing the core problem of unregulated gambling in computer games, in which case I'd agree the bill is pointless.
But, I still think paid-for-lootboxes are a problem and is worthy of our attention and worthy of a proper solution. So, even if the Hawaiian bill goes nowhere, I'm still glad the conversation is being kept alive, maybe one day we'll reach a proper solution!
We can agree to disagree, and I'm fine with that. I'm perfectly fine with publishing odds. I do take offense to someone insulting my intelligence, though, and telling me that kids are being corrupted by these mechanics when there is nothing be anecdotal evidence to support it. I actually find it hilarious because people are screaming to ban this type of mechanic for the children, meanwhlie, a THIRD of underage children (grade 8-12) have consumed alcohol in the last 30 days, 20% have engaged in binge drinking. If we apply this same logic, then we should ban alcohol, right? Oh yeah! That doesn't work, lol. Anyway, like I said, I'm perfectly fine with all the publishing of odds and information. I think it should be there. If you think it's for the kids and not simply a political play, though, I... I can't even.
I just want to jump in on this bit here.
There is an absolute shit ton of evidence to explain why gambling is bad. It is not restricted to children, gambling is bad for everybody.
Gambling becomes a problem when gambling is repeated regularly. Beyond the material issues of losing money and all the associated problems with that, the primary cause for concern is that gambling on a regular basis physically alters our brains. I just want that to sink in for a bit. Our actual brains alter the way they work when we gamble regularly. The research shows that a gambler's brain is physically altered in the same way that a drug addicts brain is altered.
That, in and of itself, should be all the reason you need to ban children from gambling.
This should also give you some insight into why some sorts of gambling are regulated (casinos) and others are not (trading cards). Whilst trading card packs are indeed a form of gambling, it is difficult to repeat that gambling on a regular basis (limited stock in stores). It is also not very prevalent, and governments tend not to regulate in the interest of protection unless they're protecting a decent amount of people. With lootboxes, millions of people participate on a daily basis, so it is very prevalent and therefore the potential for harm is massively bigger than trading cards.
If you want to use the child angle, there are still valid reasons. First, a child's brain has greater neuroplasticity than an adults. What this means is that the negative effects of gambling kick in quicker in a child than they do in the average adult. Second, children are, on average, more easily manipulated than adults. There have been some interesting studies released recently about how children and young adults don't develop the ability to properly assess risk and impact until much later than we think. Search for studies about raising the age of adolescence.
Now, having said all that, you are correct in that there are far greater issues facing young people than predatory monetisation of video games. However, I don't think that our governments are only capable of doing one thing at a time, so whilst lootboxes are small potatoes compared to child poverty, unsuitable/failing education systems, drug problems and the like, I still believe the government is capable of tackling all of them at once.
With lootboxes, it's not even a difficult issue to solve. Lootboxes simply need to be brought inline with other forms of regulated gambling. The regulations already exist, the safeguards already exist, the research already exists. All we need to do is clearly define looboxes in a legal sense and then we're good to go.
I don't blame you for jumping in, I think it's a very important topic because it has significant implications should others adopt it. What you've said is interesting, but I completely disagree.
<snip>
Again, it's not a solution to the PROBLEM. What we're seeing here is a pissed off gamer who happens to be a politician taking something they dislike in a game and making a bill. How does this solve the issue of mental health issues in games? It doesn't. That's my point now and always has been since this all started. This solves exactly nothing.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood the point of your posts. I thought you were saying that you didn't think lootboxes / gambling was a problem, rather than arguing the specifics of this bill.
I'll admit, I haven't looked at the specifics of the Hawaiian bill, only the highlights. I'm in the UK so this has no effect on me at all! From what you've written, it sounds like the bill isn't actually addressing the core problem of unregulated gambling in computer games, in which case I'd agree the bill is pointless.
But, I still think paid-for-lootboxes are a problem and is worthy of our attention and worthy of a proper solution. So, even if the Hawaiian bill goes nowhere, I'm still glad the conversation is being kept alive, maybe one day we'll reach a proper solution!
Whatever you think of the bill at least its a step in the right direction. Its creation will foster discussion and focus much unwanted attention on underhanded business practices of gaming companies. No law no matter how draconian will stop stupid people from continuing to be stupid. But the legislation the stigma attached to it, and the possibility of future lawsuits just might make companies leery of continuing some of the more outrageous financial shenanigans. Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood the point of your posts. I thought you were saying that you didn't think lootboxes / gambling was a problem, rather than arguing the specifics of this bill.
I'll admit, I haven't looked at the specifics of the Hawaiian bill, only the highlights. I'm in the UK so this has no effect on me at all! From what you've written, it sounds like the bill isn't actually addressing the core problem of unregulated gambling in computer games, in which case I'd agree the bill is pointless.
But, I still think paid-for-lootboxes are a problem and is worthy of our attention and worthy of a proper solution. So, even if the Hawaiian bill goes nowhere, I'm still glad the conversation is being kept alive, maybe one day we'll reach a proper solution!
Lol, yeah, I tend to go on tangents, but yes, that is the basic idea. I will admit that gambling, and gambling among youth, is a problem. Actually, there were some stats thrown around at one point from the UK with regards to teenage gambling which said that something like 1% of teens aged 11-16 have a gambling problem. So there is certainly a problem. However, the problem isn't related to loot boxes in games. The study it came from was specific to gambling. The same study found that 10% of UK youth in that age group (or like 400,000) gambled in the last week. That's under a regulated system.
So, while I can appreciate that paid loot boxes are an unregulated, unmetered form of RNG that COULD satisfy whatever psychological issue some of these people might have, it doesn't actually solve any problems. In fact, there are studies that identify people with a predisposition to gambling through genetics. In fact, if I remember correctly, without looking it up, the sample in the study (in the thousands of people) showed that about double the number of people were predisposition to problem gambling that what the government believes are ACTUALLY problem gamblers. What percentage of people who are identified as problem gamblers are ACTUALLY predispositioned? I have no idea. You know what would help there, though? A fucking study! Like instead of a bill! Lol.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with the bill for the most part. My summary of the issues though:
1) The bill says to post the odds - Cool! I'm a data guy, I like that. However, is there evidence that posting the odds actually helps? You can, typically, find odds about every game in vegas, including slots, but that doesn't stop people from gambling. If you're a problem gambler, do the odds simply give you more justification? 1 in 100... ok, so I just need to buy a hundred and I'll get it! Only, that's not what that means. At ALL! Right? You know it, I know it. How does that work in the head of a gambler, though?
2) The bill says you must post your intention to sell these items, and your game cannot be updated to include them later if you don't say it upfront. Well... fuck me... guess I'll put that on all my games, just in case, right?
3) Prohibition of sales of any kind is fucking hilarious. GTAV is a great example of this. I would say that, conservatively, 50% of GTAV players are under 18, which is the recommended age. Like you cannot buy this game as a minor (at least not in Canada). It simply will never work. As a parent of teens, I'm literally SHOCKED at the number of parents who allow their teens to drink and even buy them alcohol. So I'd say if that benchmark is any indication, the number of parents who give a shit about buying their kid GTAV is considerable less.
All in all, if I could rule the world and make the rules for everyone, I'd say allow the sale of loot boxes, but a portion (like 5%) of those sales must be dedicated to mental health programs in the region where it was sold. I mean that'll simply never happen, let's face it, but neither will prohibition or even slowing down this movement. I don't even think the government has enough money to throw at this type of legal fight. Remember, Activision just did $4 Billion in digital last year. That's just staggering.
We can agree to disagree, and I'm fine with that. I'm perfectly fine with publishing odds. I do take offense to someone insulting my intelligence, though, and telling me that kids are being corrupted by these mechanics when there is nothing be anecdotal evidence to support it. I actually find it hilarious because people are screaming to ban this type of mechanic for the children, meanwhlie, a THIRD of underage children (grade 8-12) have consumed alcohol in the last 30 days, 20% have engaged in binge drinking. If we apply this same logic, then we should ban alcohol, right? Oh yeah! That doesn't work, lol. Anyway, like I said, I'm perfectly fine with all the publishing of odds and information. I think it should be there. If you think it's for the kids and not simply a political play, though, I... I can't even.
Agreed. There's still a key difference between physical trading card games like Magic and electronic ones: ownership rights. It's a larger issue than just lootboxes, but it exacerbates the issue due to how it's structured with digital content.
There is a difference between regulation that doesn't work and regulation that doesn't work perfectly.
Doesn't work - it should be abandoned and maybe replaced.
Doesn't work perfectly though prompts a wider range of questions: however imperfectly its working how much good is being done; can changes be made so that it works "better"; do we want it to work better; are we happy to "pay the price" for it to work "better".
Regulation - by its very nature - imposes restrictions. Sometimes we decide the cost of "better" is to high.
This is a topic that is worth debating. People becoming addicted to gambling is a problem for them and a problem for society. For if it leads them into crime any of us can suffer. So even if we don't want to act out of "compassion" we should act out of self interest.
Our approach should be to look for stuff that can be do "no cost". Recognise however that to be more prescriptive will come at a cost. And that consequently we will only take limited action and so will only achieve limited results, that the "problem" will remain. If done right however we should have a reduced problem.
So what is the low hanging fruit? Making companies publish the odds is probably the obvious one.
Age restrictions? Getting tougher. Children are, overall, more susceptible to "advertising" however. So picking an age is probably not a bad thing. What age? Clearly that is a point to debate - and no different to any other laws that involve age.
Other stuff? Maybe.
Laws have benefits. Without them there would be warlordism at best barbarism at worse. So we have them against e.g. murder and drug pushers - but both problems still exist. And it will be the same with gambling. Regulations will not make the issue go away. That is the cost of having limited government. Of not having cameras and check points on every corner, all communications monitored and so forth. Of not living in a totalitarian state. Imperfect doesn't mean that we shouldn't do nothing however.
Comments
Please, list where it is written that new games have to be bought the second they are released.
If more waited for a major sale, the BUY in would be GREATLY REDUCED, however guess that does not matter either.
Plus all would get the benefit of knowing what a games major issues are before hand, thus affording much better decision making. If a game has mechanics you do not agree with you can avoid said games completely and never lose money on it in the first place.
To each their own.
No one is saying the state should dictate to us how to raise our children or what our morals should be but we should have the tools and information necessary to do a decent job too.
Dunno but some people need to take the tinfoil hat off and realize all societies in some form or fashion influence our morals or acceptable behavior at least to some degree, it's unavoidable.
Sometimes I think some people have a romanticized idea of what the past was like and don't realize how bloody good we have it today so I can't help but think meh when I hear some of the arguments of how we are "losing" our freedom..lolz
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Last I checked it's a crime to kill except in self defense... Thats some solid lefty logic there. There is an age limit to buy guns, and charges are pressed all the time on adults that don't keep guns away from children that use them to commit a crime.
As far as I'm concerned loot boxes are gambling, and they should at the least charge the same taxes casinos pay - not counting native american casinos of course, not sure if they pay.
Tax the shit out of them, its the american way, it's illegal unless the gov't gets it's cut. I don't like that but why should loot boxes be any different?
I do agree that there are more important things to do, but this should not be a hard decision. Just because gov't is incompetent doesn't mean this couldnt be a 20 minute discussion & decision or brought to the ballot box by citizens like any other issue. Probably won't happen in most states, but no reason not to.
But hey scrap the military (its a state function), police - or are you advocating that "the state" shouldn't stop e.g. drug traffickers selling hard drugs to kids; schools (mostly state); courts; infrastructure etc. etc. etc. .......
Can there be to much control - absolutely; most countries though have found a balance. Most.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Tools? The state needs to declare values so we know those values exist? poppycock
Culture is one thing which influences us all. Having a culture where state power is used to establish and mandate is a bad culture.
I have no idea what your concept of freedom is. My concept is freedom is where you have choices in your life as long as those choices do not infringe upon others.
My personal opinion, my choice, is to avoid play-to-win or lock box gimmicks. It should be a choice. The nanny state government is unnecessary and ultimately trouble. I do not need the state to make decisions for myself and my children are my decision, not theirs.
We do not need more government nor more stinking regulation of our lives. This dependency upon government to guide you or demand/interfere upon others is not an infinitesimal effect as the accumulation of all of this little regulations affects a vast majority of our lives. If it was just one law it could be a who-cares. Frankly, even one bad law should not be tolerated. People can not see state intrusion as unnecessary in something as innocent as games.
Authoritarian government is bad. We do not need authoritarian control of games. The world is not going to hell because of loot boxes. The world is going to hell with the growth and reach of authoritarian government.
This culture has to change.
Ok, let's not dance around McDonald's again.
What you say about trading cards is exactly the same issue here. The value of a card is subjective, but it's that subjective valuation of the collective which makes it valuable. However, if the collective determines that these 10 cards have monetary value, then buying these card packs could be equally as detrimental as gambling. For instance, Rhonda Rousey spent $1300 on WoW TCG card packs in an attempt to get one of the cards that gives you an in-game mount. So if there is something in the card packs that someone views as inherently valuable, then they will pay to get it, whether it be a rookie card of their favorite player, or something in-game.
As far as TCGs go, the cards are the totality of the experience, you're right. So the value in those cards is based on the function of that card. For instance, the Black Lotus in Magic is almost legendary in it's value to the game. In fact, it's valued somewhere in the area of $27,000 based on Google. So the monetary value of that might entice some people to buy card packs, where Magic players might buy card packs simply to try to get the card for their own deck. So, while the cards are the totality of the experience, it's not as simple as just purchasing a starter pack and being done with it. In order to be competitive, you must buy card packs and improve your collection, or you will never be competitive.
We can agree to disagree, and I'm fine with that. I'm perfectly fine with publishing odds. I do take offense to someone insulting my intelligence, though, and telling me that kids are being corrupted by these mechanics when there is nothing be anecdotal evidence to support it. I actually find it hilarious because people are screaming to ban this type of mechanic for the children, meanwhlie, a THIRD of underage children (grade 8-12) have consumed alcohol in the last 30 days, 20% have engaged in binge drinking. If we apply this same logic, then we should ban alcohol, right? Oh yeah! That doesn't work, lol. Anyway, like I said, I'm perfectly fine with all the publishing of odds and information. I think it should be there. If you think it's for the kids and not simply a political play, though, I... I can't even.
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
----------------
There is an absolute shit ton of evidence to explain why gambling is bad. It is not restricted to children, gambling is bad for everybody.
Gambling becomes a problem when gambling is repeated regularly. Beyond the material issues of losing money and all the associated problems with that, the primary cause for concern is that gambling on a regular basis physically alters our brains. I just want that to sink in for a bit. Our actual brains alter the way they work when we gamble regularly. The research shows that a gambler's brain is physically altered in the same way that a drug addicts brain is altered.
That, in and of itself, should be all the reason you need to ban children from gambling.
This should also give you some insight into why some sorts of gambling are regulated (casinos) and others are not (trading cards). Whilst trading card packs are indeed a form of gambling, it is difficult to repeat that gambling on a regular basis (limited stock in stores). It is also not very prevalent, and governments tend not to regulate in the interest of protection unless they're protecting a decent amount of people. With lootboxes, millions of people participate on a daily basis, so it is very prevalent and therefore the potential for harm is massively bigger than trading cards.
If you want to use the child angle, there are still valid reasons. First, a child's brain has greater neuroplasticity than an adults. What this means is that the negative effects of gambling kick in quicker in a child than they do in the average adult. Second, children are, on average, more easily manipulated than adults. There have been some interesting studies released recently about how children and young adults don't develop the ability to properly assess risk and impact until much later than we think. Search for studies about raising the age of adolescence.
Now, having said all that, you are correct in that there are far greater issues facing young people than predatory monetisation of video games. However, I don't think that our governments are only capable of doing one thing at a time, so whilst lootboxes are small potatoes compared to child poverty, unsuitable/failing education systems, drug problems and the like, I still believe the government is capable of tackling all of them at once.
With lootboxes, it's not even a difficult issue to solve. Lootboxes simply need to be brought inline with other forms of regulated gambling. The regulations already exist, the safeguards already exist, the research already exists. All we need to do is clearly define looboxes in a legal sense and then we're good to go.
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
----------------
Sorry, I must have misunderstood the point of your posts. I thought you were saying that you didn't think lootboxes / gambling was a problem, rather than arguing the specifics of this bill.
I'll admit, I haven't looked at the specifics of the Hawaiian bill, only the highlights. I'm in the UK so this has no effect on me at all! From what you've written, it sounds like the bill isn't actually addressing the core problem of unregulated gambling in computer games, in which case I'd agree the bill is pointless.
But, I still think paid-for-lootboxes are a problem and is worthy of our attention and worthy of a proper solution. So, even if the Hawaiian bill goes nowhere, I'm still glad the conversation is being kept alive, maybe one day we'll reach a proper solution!
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
----------------
Doesn't work - it should be abandoned and maybe replaced.
Doesn't work perfectly though prompts a wider range of questions: however imperfectly its working how much good is being done; can changes be made so that it works "better"; do we want it to work better; are we happy to "pay the price" for it to work "better".
Regulation - by its very nature - imposes restrictions. Sometimes we decide the cost of "better" is to high.
This is a topic that is worth debating. People becoming addicted to gambling is a problem for them and a problem for society. For if it leads them into crime any of us can suffer. So even if we don't want to act out of "compassion" we should act out of self interest.
Our approach should be to look for stuff that can be do "no cost". Recognise however that to be more prescriptive will come at a cost. And that consequently we will only take limited action and so will only achieve limited results, that the "problem" will remain. If done right however we should have a reduced problem.
So what is the low hanging fruit? Making companies publish the odds is probably the obvious one.
Age restrictions? Getting tougher. Children are, overall, more susceptible to "advertising" however. So picking an age is probably not a bad thing. What age? Clearly that is a point to debate - and no different to any other laws that involve age.
Other stuff? Maybe.
Laws have benefits. Without them there would be warlordism at best barbarism at worse. So we have them against e.g. murder and drug pushers - but both problems still exist. And it will be the same with gambling. Regulations will not make the issue go away. That is the cost of having limited government. Of not having cameras and check points on every corner, all communications monitored and so forth. Of not living in a totalitarian state. Imperfect doesn't mean that we shouldn't do nothing however.