Avatar

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Badges

gervaise1

About

Username
gervaise1
Joined
Visits
4,222
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
1,682
Rank
Epic
Posts
4,617
Badges
45
  • Hawaiian Bill Targets Games with Loot Boxes & Limiting Sales to Minors - General News

    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.

    Gdemami
  • New Sale! Buy a Chainmail Bikini and Cat o'nine tails! Just $20!!

    For the wearer's sake I hope this is Micromail. Very strong, no chafing. As modeled by Juliet "Jools" Stollop for Shatta.

    (Unseen Academicals, T. Pratchett)
    mystichaze
  • *Casts REVIVE on 2015* - 5 Big Kickstarter MMOs to Keep an Eye On - The List - MMORPG.com



    "Pathfinder Online...still in minimal independent development"(!) - please, stop trying to put makeup on that cold corpse and admit you were wrong.



    By the way, how did that unfortunate abomination even end up on the list? (Yeah I know it was 2015)





    Vrika said:


    Star Citizen is in Alpha, not in Beta. Current version is Alpha 3.0.






    An obvious freudian slip. See above ;)



    Why bash these attempts? If you insist at least remember to mention that CU just admitted to being late as well.
    JamesGoblin
  • Star Citizen - Development Updates

    I totally understand that, it's just that I find that it goes directly against the idea of expanding the scope that they promoted years ago.
    The current scope is as described by the core and stretched goals - which haven't changed in some time. And the stretched goals were a part of that expanded scope.

    Doesn't mean that in the future - as a minimum after it has launched - there couldn't be further scope expansion. Surely though you are not suggesting they start introducing new goals? Pretty sure if they did you would have something negative to say.

    Oh well. Dammed if they don't; dammed if they do in some peoples eyes it seems.
    jerry1991
  • Layoffs Confirmed, Sustainable Development Now Stable - Chronicles of Elyria - MMORPG.com

    Scot said:
    Wraithone said:
    SBFord said:
    For those of you who have closely followed this, why do you think publishers aren't interested in CoE? I mean, it's got some interesting features and so forth. Simply too expensive? Not enough "experience" on the dev team? Theories? I'm genuinely interested.
    Keep in mind that suits tend to be some of the most risk adverse people one can meet. Thats even in the best of times. This is FAR from the best of times.  Given events over the last two years, and the fact that they will not allow micro transactions/loot boxes and other such, it was only to be expected that no publisher would touch them.

    Keep in mind that suits ONLY care about money and the potential ROI.  Thats how they get promotions and bonus packs at the end of the year.  High level games have simply become too expensive, take too long and have a poor track record over the last few years.

    Long gone are the days when "Its just like World of Warcraft" would result in truck loads of money being thrown at a given project.

    It is not like WoW though, that was the other side of the problem, but I agree the primary issue must have been ROI. Even if you convince them you can make a profit, they then ask "but will it make as much as a game with an MT economy and loot boxes." They only go with projects that give the biggest ROI so you fail there. 
    Agree up to a point.

    Any company interested enough to "look seriously" at the game will assume that the people running it know what they are doing - and if it looks like they don't know what they are doing they wouldn't be looking or would walk away. (Maybe they did!)

    The primary issue though is more fundamental than ROI i.e. Return ON investment its return OF investment.  NCSoft's results showcase Wiildstar's financial failure and before they sold off SoE Sony wrote off tens of millions.

    Nor is there any realistic hope of a long term "slow" recovery. The game pretty much has to recover its costs "at or around launch".
    Gdemami