Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Canadian Lawsuit Over Loot Boxes Say EA 'Operated an Unlicensed, Illegal Gaming System' | MMORPG.com
System
Member UncommonPosts: 12,599
Canadian Lawsuit Over Loot Boxes Say EA 'Operated an Unlicensed, Illegal Gaming System' | MMORPG.com
EA is back in the news for the reasons you might expect. Loot boxes. Yup.
Comments
What about all the other games that do loot boxes but call them something different?
And this is the year in which the president unironically asked if we could inject bleach to kill the coronavirus.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
You say that as though loot boxes are the only reason why gamers hate EA, rather than just one out of a very long list.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Sad, but true. **sad trombone**
they would go faster, if people stop selling they panties to pay for such gachas, asking for goverment make a law normally backfire big time and its then abused in some other way, but if people learn and used they heads maybe things was no so bad
Oi oi oi. You keep my Gachas out of this.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
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.
'Gambling (also known as betting) is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome, with the primary intent of winning money or material goods'
Loot boxes are a mechanic where a player pays either with in-game currency or real money for a randomized in-game item. That is not similar and isn't under stretch of imagination the same thing as buying a game.
Rules and laws are breached all the time. It does not mean that if no law suits are brought against all the other breaches that the one you pursue will fail. As long as there is evidence to support the suit it can succeed. You don't have to show that you are bringing a case against every breach and it is also no defense that other people breaking the rules or law are not being sued and neither does it legalize those actions.
You only need to set a precedent by winning a case to make the other forms of monetization to run foul of that case. Which is probably what this suit is trying to do.
A lot of laws about consumer protection, advertising, and business practices actually evolve that way. Business constantly evolves and does new and different things, and occasionally some of those are taken into court so far that it becomes a precedent for whether something is allowed or forbidden. Often rest of the business world then follows that precedent out of their own initiative if it's something that's not too expensive to change.
One tumbles and the others follow.
Often in those cases, it is always best to go after high profile clients, that can do their best to defend, because during that legal process they close all the loopholes going forward.
As far as legality goes, If the fact that others did it, was enough to claim something was legal, nothing would be illegal. Case in point, you don't need to catch all the speeders..
The rest of the world would appreciate it if you'd stop dickriding your corporate overlords with takes a troglodyte would laugh at
Aside from that, I can't for the life of me understand why so many fawn over the profit model in Warframe. It works around the effort to make things as uncomfortable as possible, to get people to spend money, directly, or indirectly. This is done through horrible drop rates, a pathetic trade chat channel, rather than a proper marketplace UI, removing the cash shop currency as a possible log-in reward, making their cash shop currency overpriced, resources that expire, changing the void system so you apparently can't stockpile keys in advance anymore, with available void areas themselves being time limited, and so on. Warframe is one of my go to examples of a bad profit model, yet so many Western players hold it up as some sort of ideal, rather than something like Path of Exile.
If the company just gave everyone a sword, a robe, and a panda pet, would that moot the loot box claim?
Or would the fact that some paid while others did not pay change things?
Then again, they would have received what they paid for, so where would be the harm?
Or is the harm the loss of the rarity of the items?
Wow. This would make a great exam question.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I personally feel that when it comes to MMO's, they should just sell wears straight up in the store, so there is no sense of deception, leave the rng games to the mob drops where it belongs.
This is why I love the selling of DNC by the company, and letting players farm for their loot.
Also I could be wrong but I thought when incorporating gambling you had to disclose the odds as well.
So I just did a quick check and I see the monopolies must be expecting new legislature because the yare going to require all their developers to disclose gambling odds.So my assumption is that this is an early sign they see huge lawsuits happening and are trying to BEND the rules while still operating as a gambling entity that also relates to minors.
I also mentioned a couple weeks ago that a MTL lawyer team are or were in the mist of suing Epic games for incorporating "addictive" measures towards minors.
Now as scummy as dev studios are they have long thwarted legal action by claiming they never "target" minors but they know full well that is not true.They target EVERYONE and so happens minors are included as being "everyone".So again the law needs more changes all over the place because a slick lawyer will simply say the law says they have to "specifically" target minors and not as an inclusive.
it doesn't matter how you slice it or the "wording/terms"used by their slick lawyers,they KNOW full well they are undermining the law and are very scummy for doing so.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.