Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Incline The Death of Freemium? Microtransactions Under Global Scrutiny

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
What's wrong with gambling? If fools are willing to pay, they should be fleeced raw.

It's not like those shit games will get any less shittier, so the least they can do is make some subhuman retards poorer.

I think you underestimate how these monetization schemes influence game design and even greenlighting games.

They influence game design of shit games I have zero interest in. And while watching them burn would be pleasant indeed, watching their fanbase getting thoroughly ruined and corrupted is even more so. The slaves shall serve.

If this scum kept slaving away at the uranium mines instead of invading my hobby, there would be no shit games. So yes, game industry, please bleed bleed bleed bleed them fucking dry, make them sell their sons for organs and prostitute their daughters at the age of 5. Karma is wonderful.
 

Cool name

Arcane
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
2,147
technically what's the difference between this and "durr stop violent gaems!!11"
mild desensitization to violence helps children grow and succeed in a competitive world

being molded into compulsive gamblers by teams of EA psychomajisticians before their brains are remotely developed does not

one is like banning kids from competitive sports, the other is like banning kids from smoking crack. the first is advocated only by pussies, the second by ppl who don't want kids to grow up into useless pieces of shit since they're gonna have to deal with them when they're adults

on that note bioware-style romances should also be banned from all games below M/18+ because overexposure at a young age might contribute to turning an otherwise normal youth into an annoying socially retarded turbovirgin. not banned altogether only because I don't believe in legislating bad taste











...but mainly games that revolve around this shit suck so having less of them would be p cool. that said, doing anything more than just requiring that they be rated M/18+ like games with other "mature" content would cause more problems than it solves
 
Last edited:

wyes gull

Savant
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
424
I think you underestimate how these monetization schemes influence game design
Monetization schemes on games made by massive publishers are going to continue to influence game design and become more and more inseparable from core gameplay -regardless- of whatever these commissions find and whatever laws they decide to enact or god forbid, create, to try and tackle the issue. That's the nature of big business.

The real problem is when the actual law(s) start to influence it. Because why then, would they stop at gambling? I mean, if you're using the children excuse, what about violence? Sex? Where does it stop?

And is it even a problem? If children have unregulated, unsupervised access to an amount of money they can't exercise responsibility over, then the problem is with the parents/parenting, not the game. Hell, even adults can't exercise responsibility with money. Just look at Star Citizen. And yet you're still not expected to have any input on how or when they should waste their money. It's their money, it's their prerogative.

IF there is an issue of a corporation/game being immoral (and I tend to think there is), it's how it markets these things to kids, who by default (legally, at any rate) are unaware that they're having their strings pulled (and that's without going into the addictive nature of the game itself). But then that's never going to change until you decide to change the nature of the beast. If you did, you wouldn't have mascots on cereal boxes and packets of gum would have as many disclaimers and warnings as a pack of fags. It's not a new issue but governments don't want to touch it with a 10ft pole for fear of pissing the capital off.

The best thing that can happen IMO is these games with lootboxes get slapped with an 18 certificate and the people go back to ignoring them. As for the lootboxes themselves, they're like mimics. I love them. They let me know what games to avoid better than the Metacritic user score.
 
Last edited:

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
And is it even a problem? If children have unregulated, unsupervised access to an amount of mount they can't exercise responsibility over, then the problem is with the parents/parenting, not the game. Hell, even adults can't exercise responsibility with money. Just look at Star Citizen. And yet you're still not expected to have any input on how or when they should waste their money. It's their money, it's their prerogative.
If that is the case, why do we have laws barring children from entering casinos? Shall we abolish them as well?
 

wyes gull

Savant
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
424
If that is the case, why do we have laws barring children from entering casinos? Shall we abolish them as well?
For the same reason you should have an 18 certificate in these types of games. For the same reason that maybe packs of gum shouldn't offer trading cards or stickers and boxes of cereals shouldn't offer a chance for trips to Disneyland. And IF the parents decide to ignore them, that's their prerogative. Their problem, not society's.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
If that is the case, why do we have laws barring children from entering casinos? Shall we abolish them as well?
For the same reason you should have an 18 certificate in these types of games. For the same reason that maybe packs of gum shouldn't offer trading cards or stickers and boxes of cereals shouldn't offer a chance for trips to Disneyland. And IF the parents decide to ignore them, that's their prerogative. Their problem, not society's.
Online 18+ certifications doesn't mean anything. Anyone can type in "Yes" in the declaration or click a button. The interwebs is really becoming a minefield in all sorts of areas.
 

Mark Richard

Arcane
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
1,192
technically what's the difference between this and "durr stop violent gaems!!11"

Mentally ill people are another thing, but would you really want something taken from you just to protect mentally ill people? Seriously, would you?
Banning video games is censorship, labelling games with an age rating & warnings appropriate to their content gives the consumer the information they need to make an informed decision. If publishers want real gambling in their games, they should be rated accordingly.

If parents don't want children spending their money they should fucking take care of them.
I'm sick of seeing this statement around the web. You expect parents to get involved when the tools they're given to do so are rigged. Getting involved is precisely what they were doing when they checked the content warning and age rating for these game which claimed they're suitable for children. Fuck off with this nonsense. There's a healthy middle ground between letting media raise your kid and personally authenticating every piece of child-friendly media on the off-chance it contains despicable gambling mechanics. Parents should be able to leave their kid alone with a Star Wars game without worrying about them turning into Doc Holliday.
 

wyes gull

Savant
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
424
Online 18+ certifications doesn't mean anything.
Of course they don't. Neither does GTA's 18 certificate. You're telling me kids don't play that game? Of course they do. What you're doing is your part to inform the parents and let them make the decision. And if they don't care, why would you?

The interwebs is really becoming a minefield in all sorts of areas.
Oh come on, it always was. And it should be.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
Online 18+ certifications doesn't mean anything.
Of course they don't. Neither does GTA's 18 certificate. You're telling me kids don't play that game? Of course they do. What you're doing is your part to inform the parents and let them make the decision. And if they don't care, why would you?
When it comes to online stuff, it is very difficult for parents to police. That is why we are having so much problems related to the web at the moment. Bullying, defamation, gambling, and more. The thing is, the corporation would LOVE it if kids get involved in gambling. Kids don't have even the slight self-control that some adults have. Some of them don't even know what the value of money is.

All 18+ does is give the corporations the legal loophole they need to continue as planned. I have linked to one particular game several times now where it is basically completely transparent what they are doing, but they are hiding behind legal loopholes and sophistry to get away with what is basically fraud. I want to close that loophole.
 

wyes gull

Savant
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
424
That is why we are having so much problems related to the web at the moment.
But we're not. The only problem we're having is giving internet access to idiots who don't appreciate what it is, what its benefits are and what the potential downfalls are as well. People without even a superficial understanding of the tech they're using. People who are handing out way too much information without considering the consequences; people who are acting a certain way because they expect something that is used by others from around to world to be some sort of replica of their real world. But it's not. And -that- is what makes it great. Those people can go get fucked in the ass with an iron rod. Why? Because they're ruining it for all of us. Themselves, even, despite them not having the wherewithal to know they're doing it.

The thing is, the corporation would LOVE it if kids get involved in gambling.
And it's the government's job to warn parents that they are and what the consequences are and the parents' job to decide if and what to do about it. The kids' self-control or their appreciation of money is not my problem. It's not the internet's problem. It's the parents'.

All 18+ does is give the corporations the legal loophole they need to continue as planned.
Don't get me wrong. If there's anything I don't appreciate, is letting corporations run roughshod because they're afforded the legal expertise, the capital and the power of influence that the average Joe doesn't have. In that sense, I'm as "oh comrades, come rally" as they come. But this isn't the average Joe vs. the big corp. This is the average Joe feat. weaponized children vs. everyone else's rights.
Is this one situation actual fraud? Good, treat it as such and let the company suffer the legal penalty.

However, you want to close that "loophole"? I want you to consider the implications. We can either have a free internet, with all its traps and perils, or you and people like you can continue using children as a battering ram to get rid of what you don't like, what you find immoral and getting government(s) more and more involved. What happens when you go down that route is obvious. Corporations have the money and the pull to influence lawmaking (the same you're expecting to close your "loopholes" for you); you (or rather, the other average Joes) don't. And what you're left is with the Disney internet.

Freedom or Mickey Mouse? Your call.
 
Last edited:

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
How come muh childrun in your countries have money to begin with? If parents leave their credit cards around, it's their own fucking problem.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,236
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
A skeptical take from last month:

This Dumb Industry: Loot Boxes Are Not Gambling?

splash_this_dumb_industry.jpg


Last week the ESRB decided that Loot Boxes are not gambling. We’re talking about “loot boxes” in the sense of in-game rewards, not “loot crates“, the physical merch you can subscribe to. Also remember that the ESRB is a non-government, non-profit, self-regulatory organization. They’re the equivalent to the MPAA in the realm of Hollywood films.

I haven’t played a lot of games that use loot boxes. I played Counter-Strike, but that was in decades past, long before loot boxes. I played Team Fortress 2, but I was losing interest in the game just as the loot-based economy was taking off. (And there the boxes are free, but the keys to open them cost money.) I played the original Titanfall in online multiplayer, but I only spent a few evenings with it and I certainly never bought any microtransaction stuff. The point I’m getting at is that I have basically zero experience with boxes of the lootish variety. I can’t speak with any authority on how the the process works or how exploitative it might be. I’m not really here to convince you in-game loot packages are a good thing or a bad thing, only that I think this debate over “gambling” is an interesting one.

For reference, here is how I understand the system: The game will have some sort of reward-over-time mechanic where you slowly earn “boxes” of in-game items. The contents of the boxes are random. In the games we’re talking about in regards to this particular ESRB rating, these games will also offer you a choice to outright buy these boxes for real money. The trick is that not all boxes are created equal. Some boxes contain things that are so common they’re basically worthless, and some boxes contain exotic in-game goods that can only be obtained through boxes. Again, every game is a little different. Sometimes there’s a meta-currency somewhere along the process and sometimes the boxes are given randomly instead of over time, but this is the idea in broad strokes.

When the ruling was announced, the overwhelming response was, “DUH! OBVIOUSLY THIS IS GAMBLING HOW CAN YOU BE SO BLIND?!”

My response was, “How interesting. What do you mean by ‘gambling’?”

It turns out this is one of those insidious discussions where everyone has a slightly different ad-hoc definition that they assume is universal to all.

What’s At Stake


stock_slots.jpg



In the ESRB system, there’s “simulated gambling” and “real gambling”. If a game is categorized as “real gambling” then it gets slapped with the dreaded Adults Only rating. This is a more serious category than “Mature”, which is where stuff like Grand Theft Auto winds up. Adults Only is usually given to stuff like pornographic games. Stores won’t carry AO titles, which means that it’s basically the kiss of death for a game. If a certain system is considered real gambling then developers will stop using it, because nobody in the AAA space can afford to take that kind of risk.

Lots of people hate this loot box business, and so they really want to see it categorized as gambling so developers will be forced to stop putting it in their games. They figure if the game meets any possible definition of gambling then it should be classified as gambling. While I sympathize with the desire to see this business practice die, this sort of regulatory sledgehammer is probably a bad way to go about solving that particular problem.

Imagine you hate modern military shooters, so you get them classified as “pornography” on the basis of them containing “gun porn” in the form of modern real-world weapons. You pat yourself on the back, thinking the industry won’t be dominated by the likes of Call of Duty or Battlefieldanymore. But using this trick means that many other games will get caught in your regulatory net. Suddenly a bunch of turn-based strategy games you love are pulled from the shelves because they also feature real-world firearms, and it was already hard enough to get your hands on that kind of thing. Meanwhile, Call of Duty just replaces their machine guns with pew-pew lasers and the industry continues on as before.

I know this sounds far fetched, but consider this: If loot boxes are gambling, then what about Hearthstone and other collectible card games? Random packs of goods are a much larger part of those games than the shooters we’re talking about. You could end up causing a lot of collateral damage and creating problems for other fanbases. Meanwhile, there’s no guarantee these publishers won’t replace their loot boxes with something even more obnoxious.

For example, if you rule that loot boxes are “real gambling” then the publishers could easily replace them with (say) pay-to-fight bosses. Pay some money, fight the (completely pushover) boss, and the boss drops what would have originally been inside of the box. To the publisher, it’s the same deal: Randomized loot for money. They can always keep adding different steps to the process until they’ve effectively routed around your definition of gambling. If you’re trying to get rid of loot boxes by having them classified as gambling, then you’ll end up in a never-ending game of rules-lawyering. And you really don’t want to play that game against companies who have a staff of real-world lawyers, because they literally do this for a living.

“For Every Complex Problem, There Is an Answer That Is Clear, Simple, and Wrong.”

H.L. Mencken never actually said this but it’s still a fun quote.​

Defining Gambling is Obvious, Right?


stock_cereal_prize.jpg



We can agree that slot machines are gambling, right? You put in money[1], and sometimes you get money out. Gambling, right?

And I think most of us can agree that breakfast cereal is not gambling, even if the box might contain a prize and even if that prize can vary significantly in value based on random chance. You pay money for cereal and you might get something of unpredictable value. Despite this, it’s usually considered not gambling.

What I hope you’ve noticed by now is that it’s hard to draw a clear line between these two. You can push breakfast cereal into the realm of gambling by increasing the potential value of the prize. If the box might contain a ticket for a million dollars or the keys for a new car then people might treat the cereal like lottery tickets: Buy the box and throw away the food because all you care about is the prize. I think that would count as gambling to most people. Likewise, you could change a slot machine to dispense goods rather than money and end up with a machine that isn’t considered “gambling”, even thought it clearly is. In fact, that’s what a prize grabber is. It’s a game of chance masquerading as a game of skill where you pay money for a chance at a non-cash prize.

In the United States, there are laws against certain kinds of gambling. The thinking is that lotteries exploit the poor and desperate, so if you try to run one you will go to jail. (Unless, of course, you’re a state government, 89% of which make an exception only for themselves.) Obviously there are still prizes offered by companies as part of various promotions. McDonald’s ran their McMillions program for years. Other companies give away cars and trips and piles of money.



diablo3_loot.jpg



The trick here is that it’s only a lottery in the legal sense[2] if people must to pay to enter. If you can get a chance to win for free, then it’s not technically “gambling”. So in order to comply with the law, companies must offer some way to get a chance to win for free. They tend to make this method really inconvenient, like asking you to mail them an already-stamped envelope, thus making you pay for postage both ways. You get one entry per envelope, so if you want to enter ten times then you’re going to spend a lot of money on stamps and a lot of time filling out envelopes. This is inconvenient enough to make spamming for free entries unattractive, thus encouraging people to just BUY THE STUPID PRODUCT YOU CHEAP BASTARD.

When we’re talking about the definition of “gambling” we’re usually doing so because we’re trying to regulate or control it. Usually this is in the context of governments, but with the ESRB we’re talking about a non-profit organization with voluntary compliance. In order to nail down the definition, I think you need to consider these questions:
  1. Is it a game of chance? (As opposed to a carnival game where you throw balls or shoot targets.)
  2. Do you have to pay real money – either directly or by buying a given product – in order to play it?
  3. Does the game pay out in cash, or in goods and services?
  4. Is the opportunity itself the product (lottery) or is it simply a marketing tool for an unrelated product (breakfast cereal prizes) that would still be viable without the prize?
Depending on how you answer these, you might conclude that only slot machines and roulette wheels are actually gambling, or you might conclude that playing a Diablo clone is gambling. Heck, you could argue that pre-ordering games is more like real gambling than loot boxes. It’s easy to come up with a definition that seems reasonable and then realize you’ve accidentally included or excluded something obviously inappropriate.

What I’m getting at is that I understand this sort of thing is tough and I think reasonable people can have very different definitions of what gambling is.

The Rationale


overwatch_loot.jpg



I wanted to trace this story back to the source, but the ESRB doesn’t issue press releases or post official statements on their site. So if you want something official you have to email them and then post their reply, which means we can’t have a definitive link that can be cited for reference and the whole thing turns into a game of telephone.

Since we’re playing telephone, the best I can do is quote Kotaku’s email from the ESRB where they explain why loot boxes aren’t gambling.

While there’s an element of chance in these mechanics, the player is always guaranteed to receive in-game content (even if the player unfortunately receives something they don’t want) We think of it as a similar principle to collectible card games: Sometimes you’ll open a pack and get a brand new holographic card you’ve had your eye on for a while. But other times you’ll end up with a pack of cards you already have.​

While I wouldn’t personally rule that loot boxes are “real gambling”, I think this particular justification is an odd one. I’d lean towards ruling that it’s not gambling because the things you “win” are non-liquid and non-transferable. People don’t buy these things to gain wealth, which is the danger we often associate with gambling. But instead the ESRB based their decision on the fact that you always “get something”. I’m betting[3] this rationale exists to protect titles like Hearthstone. Still, if you use their definition that it’s not gambling if you always “get something” then even the lottery isn’t gambling because if you lose you still “get” something. (A worthless bit of paper.)

So I agree with the ESRB’s conclusion, even if I disagree on how they got there. In any case, I doubt we’ll get rid of loot boxes by classifying them as gambling. Now if you don’t mind, I’m going back to my single-player games. Those don’t have loot boxes.

Yet.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
But we're not. The only problem we're having is giving internet access to idiots who don't appreciate what it is, what its benefits are and what the potential downfalls are as well. People without even a superficial understanding of the tech they're using. People who are handing out way too much information without considering the consequences; people who are acting a certain way because they expect something that is used by others from around to world to be some sort of replica of their real world. But it's not. And -that- is what makes it great. Those people can go get fucked in the ass with an iron rod. Why? Because they're ruining it for all of us. Themselves, even, despite them not having the wherewithal to know they're doing it.
Unless there is a R18+ rating on the whole of the Internet, you will always have those naive people in the form of children. The best we can do is mitigate that, and I have always advocated that it is the parents who are responsible for it. This type of microtransaction gambling is actually the FIRST time I have advocated there be a law against them to protect people. I actually am OK with the current laws we have for casinos and speak out against SJWs wanting to add to the laws with "counselling" and all that rot.

My reasoning is the same as laws against drugs and child pornography and the like: It exploits people and takes away their ability to say No in various insidious ways. Gambling is habit forming, and if it were only adults who get into it, I wouldn't have given a flying rat's arse about it. But the problem is that these type of games are targeted at children. This one even more so as it is linked to Star Wars. I suggest you go into the game I have linked to before and play it for a couple of hours just to see the kind of mechanisms they use to encourage you to spend. It is a megaphone in your ear going off every few seconds. And given the shiny and the fanservice, you can bet that underaged kids are sucked in like crazy. I know of kids who come home from school and jump on it, spending every cent they own and earn on it. It is addictive and habit forming, and just as drugs are bad, so are these.

And it's the government's job to warn parents that they are and what the consequences are and the parents' job to decide if and what to do about it. The kids' self-control or their appreciation of money is not my problem. It's not the internet's problem. It's the parents'.
I can say the same of any R18+ rated things, from porn to movies to gambling to drinking to driving. If that is the case, I would like you to call it out here that you would like all those things abolished.

Don't get me wrong. If there's anything I don't appreciate, is letting corporations run roughshod because they're afforded the legal expertise, the capital and the power of influence that the average Joe doesn't have. In that sense, I'm as "oh comrades, come rally" as they come. But this isn't the average Joe vs. the big corp. This is the average Joe feat. weaponized children vs. everyone else's rights.
Is this one situation actual fraud? Good, treat it as such and let the company suffer the legal penalty.

However, you want to close that "loophole"? I want you to consider the implications. We can either have a free internet, with all its traps and perils, or you and people like you can continue using children as a battering ram to get rid of what you don't like, what you find immoral and getting government(s) more and more involved. What happens when you go down that route is obvious. Corporations have the money and the pull to influence lawmaking; you don't. And what you're left is with the Disney internet.

Freedom or Mickey Mouse? Your call.
It is not one or the other. It is a false dichotomy. If it is a true one, you'd be against EVERYTHING that is R18+, but you are not. That is hypocrisy. On some level you accept that there are things that children should not have access to. It is not an all or nothing situation.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
A skeptical take from last month:

This Dumb Industry: Loot Boxes Are Not Gambling?

For example, if you rule that loot boxes are “real gambling” then the publishers could easily replace them with (say) pay-to-fight bosses. Pay some money, fight the (completely pushover) boss, and the boss drops what would have originally been inside of the box. To the publisher, it’s the same deal: Randomized loot for money. They can always keep adding different steps to the process until they’ve effectively routed around your definition of gambling. If you’re trying to get rid of loot boxes by having them classified as gambling, then you’ll end up in a never-ending game of rules-lawyering. And you really don’t want to play that game against companies who have a staff of real-world lawyers, because they literally do this for a living.
No need for rules-lawyering: Put it in so that any form of monetary or similar transaction takes place ANYWHERE along the chain that results in a box that has a chance based factor of getting items, it is gambling. The corporation can then put in as many pushover bosses as they want, but the second you had to pay real money in any way to face the boss or buy ingame credits or similar to pay for the attempt to face the boss and get the random loot box, it is gambling.

The problem isn't the fact that you are paying money to get items. Pay2win can actually still be legal. There is NOTHING in the whole gambling thing that actually forbids P2W. You just have to make it so that you pay x and get y, not chance of getting y. There you go. Controversy over. The fact that companies REFUSE to do so shows exactly where they are coming from.

Mandate that any ingame purchases MUST be completely disclosed and that there is to be NO CHANCE involved in any ingame purchase. No % drops or anything like that. That would take out the gambling factor, but you can still have as many P2W games as you want.

Freedom to choose a game you want to play coupled with getting rid of pushing gambling on to kids. The Third Option.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,236
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Many games have randomized loot, if you buy standard expansion DLC for that game then is that gambling :M

But seriously, I don't doubt you could come up with some sort of sensible regulation that addresses the most egregious cases. I just hope nobody is under the illusion that the Government is going to rescue us from the Decline of Gaming (lol). The decline of single player in the face of the upcoming onslaught of PUBG clones is an industry trend that's bigger than just lootboxes.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
Many games have randomized loot, if you buy standard expansion DLC for that game then is that gambling :M

But seriously, I don't doubt you could come up with some sort of sensible regulation that addresses the most egregious cases. I just hope nobody is under the illusion that the Government could rescue us from the Decline (lol). The decline of single player in the face of the upcoming onslaught of PUBG clones is an industry trend that's bigger than just lootboxes.
The difference between a DLC with randomised loot and lootboxes is that you pay ONCE for a DLC and you can get as many tries as you want until you get what you want. With lootboxes, you have to pay for each ATTEMPT.
 

adrix89

Arbiter
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
700
Location
Why are there so many of my country here?
But seriously, I don't doubt you could come up with some sort of sensible regulation that addresses the most egregious cases. I just hope nobody is under the illusion that the Government could rescue us from the Decline (lol). The decline of single player in the face of the upcoming onslaught of PUBG clones is an industry trend that's bigger than just lootboxes.
Small steps.

If a perpetual vicious mob was created that reacted to every bullshit the industry does then we might get some progress.

Hearthstone, Overwatch, Team Fortress, Counter Strike. They can get the bullet too.
 

wyes gull

Savant
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
424
My reasoning is the same as laws against drugs and child pornography and the like
That is incredibly shortsighted. Drugs and child pornography are nothing alike and as such deserve different treatment. Child pornography has a special place in law because it can't so much as even exist without someone's rights being implicitly violated. You define a child as a person who cannot be responsible for his or her own behavior to the full extent and furthermore is, again, by definition, not expected to be able to understand the context or the implications of pornography (or sex) and as such is unable to consent; ergo a child cannot be allowed to produce/take part in pornography. Drugs in and of themselves are an acceptable part of society and have been for a very long time. You're doing them, I'm doing them, children are doing them, everyone is. Gambling deserves a similar treatment to drugs, not CP, if any of them. It is not wrong or immoral in and of itself. It -can- create problems, same way drugs can but it is not a problem by definition. Which CP is. So there's another hint you're going about this the wrong way.

If that is the case, I would like you to call it out here that you would like all those things abolished.
What kind of inference is that? I -don't- want them abolished. I want them legally restricted to children in a way that the parents retain the option to circumvent that restriction if they decide to, same way my dad gave me a beer when I was 14. I want those who are responsible to continue being allowed to exercise their responsibility.

It is not one or the other. It is a false dichotomy
It is not. It's the logical conclusion of when people start finding it acceptable to ignore the actual problems and skip to using children as an excuse to try to ban what they don't like. It's meant to illustrate the lack of foresight, logic and principles that implies.

On some level you accept that there are things that children should not have access to. It is not an all or nothing situation.
Of course I think that there's things children should not have access to. What is all or nothing is how far you are willing to go in wavering your rights in order to deny them access to it. Because you either accept that the internet is free and there are always going to be problems and tackle every situation as is required, or you accept that children being hurt by something on it is a legitimate reason to sanitize it. You might not want to sanitize all of it but someone does. And if the argument suits your problem, it suits everyone's. That is what's either/or.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
That is incredibly shortsighted. Drugs and child pornography are nothing alike and as such deserve different treatment. Child pornography has a special place in law because it can't so much as even exist without someone's rights being implicitly violated. You define a child as a person who cannot be responsible for his or her own behavior to the full extent and furthermore is, again, by definition, not expected to be able to understand the context or the implications of pornography (or sex) and as such is unable to consent; ergo a child cannot be allowed to produce/take part in pornography. Drugs in and of themselves are an acceptable part of society and have been for a very long time. You're doing them, I'm doing them, children are doing them, everyone is. Gambling deserves a similar treatment to drugs, not CP, if any of them. It is not wrong or immoral in and of itself. It -can- create problems, same way drugs can but it is not a problem by definition. Which CP is. So there's another hint you're going about this the wrong way.
So you are basically saying you are against the laws making drugs illegal? Yes or no?

Of course I think that there's things children should not have access to. What is all or nothing is how far you are willing to go in wavering your rights in order to deny them access to it. Because you either accept that the internet is free and there are always going to be problems and tackle every situation as is required, or you accept that children being hurt by something on it is a legitimate reason to sanitize it. You might not want to sanitize all of it but someone does. And if the argument suits your problem, it suits everyone's. That is what's either/or.
Wrong. Laws exist that limits things but do not allow them outright or ban them outright. Your knee-jerk reaction to someone talking about children is colouring your stance immensely. I have no love for SJWs and their banning ways, as I have made explicitly clear on many occassions. However, there are times when reality coincides with what they say. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. This, I believe, is one of those times.
 

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
Many games have randomized loot, if you buy standard expansion DLC for that game then is that gambling :M

But seriously, I don't doubt you could come up with some sort of sensible regulation that addresses the most egregious cases. I just hope nobody is under the illusion that the Government is going to rescue us from the Decline of Gaming (lol). The decline of single player in the face of the upcoming onslaught of PUBG clones is an industry trend that's bigger than just lootboxes.

If loot boxes are gambling, so are TCG packs, baseball cards and sticker albums. I don't like the path the industry, especially on mobile has taken, and it was inevitable that the scummy schemes would undergo some scrutiny, but the most likely outcome is that we get overregulation or regulation which only affects minor parties while the Tencents of the world remain largely unaffected.

And sorry, if children spend thousands of dollars on micro transactions, their parents are to blame and should be required to pay every penny.


Inb4 EA moves their transaction servers to an Indian reservation.
 

wyes gull

Savant
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
424
So you are basically saying you are against the laws making drugs illegal? Yes or no?
No, what I am basically saying is that drugs, child pornography and gambling are different things and deserve different legal treatments. Would I like all the drugs in the known world to be made legal? Fuck yeah. What I'd like first and foremost would be for the public to be actually informed about what they are, what effects they have and what consequences using and abusing them entail, first and foremost. But an otherwise responsible adult wants to get fucked up one night? Have at it. He OD'd? Fuck him, he knew the risks.

Your knee-jerk reaction to someone talking about children is colouring your stance immensely. Laws exist that limits things but do not allow them outright or ban them outright.
What's colouring my stance is someone bringing up children for a lack of arguments. Or logic, even.
Regardless, what would you do? And more importantly, HOW do you justify it?
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
So you are basically saying you are against the laws making drugs illegal? Yes or no?
No, what I am basically saying is that drugs, child pornography and gambling are different things and deserve different legal treatments. Would I like all the drugs in the known world to be made legal? Fuck yeah. What I'd like first and foremost would be for the public to be actually informed about what they are, what effects they have and what consequences using and abusing them entail, first and foremost. But an otherwise responsible adult wants to get fucked up one night? Have at it. He OD'd? Fuck him, he knew the risks.

Your knee-jerk reaction to someone talking about children is colouring your stance immensely. Laws exist that limits things but do not allow them outright or ban them outright.
What's colouring my stance is someone bringing up children for a lack of arguments. Or logic, even.
Regardless, what would you do? And more importantly, HOW do you justify it?
No. You CLAIM that others don't have logic or argument. You REFUSE to listen when others have already reiterated several times the reasons why they have their stance. You BELIEVE that you have the only answer and IGNORE what you don't want to hear.

And you wanting to legalise drugs is but merely a symptom of the delusion you suffer from.
 

Archibald

Arcane
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
7,869
They influence game design of shit games I have zero interest in.

Just like SJWs, right? Just ignore them and they'll go away. Oh wait.

I don't like the path the industry, especially on mobile has taken, and it was inevitable that the scummy schemes would undergo some scrutiny

Well we know that regulators have been monitoring, to some extent, this situation at least since 2013 and probably way earlier. And I'd assume they were willing to tolerate it (and allow industry to regulate itself) as long as it was this ugly underbelly of gaming industry that would rarely hit mainstream news. But then enters EA, Disney and Star Wars. That sent a clear signal that industry isn't going to regulate itself at all and that this is becoming industry norm.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
They influence game design of shit games I have zero interest in.

Just like SJWs, right? Just ignore them and they'll go away. Oh wait.

Unlike SJWs, shit games don't threaten my habits and lifestyle. That point has been passed in late 90s. When, once in a decade, an actually good game suddenly happens, it does so against all trends and fads of game industry and outside its very existence (ie Grimoire or Knights of the Chalice).
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom