Incline The Death of Freemium? Microtransactions Under Global Scrutiny

[fantadomat]

Many games have randomized loot, if you buy standard expansion DLC for that game then is that gambling

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.

Don't care about such things,but it is fun to watch all those shit corporations burn!

 

[Valky]

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.

People who can't save themselves aren't worth saving.

 

[adrix89]

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).

We will see about that when the next Age of Decadence sequel will come with Choice and Consequence DLC. Don't believe me? Look are the 4X and Grand Strategy genre being Paradox little bitches.

 

[wyes gull]

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.

There are no others here. There's you and me. I'm telling you my opinion on the matter. I'm claiming you have no logic or argument, and you're proving my point by comparing gambling to "drugs" (and never specifying what kind) and child pornography (fucking lol). You complain certificates are useless but offer no alternatives and don't even dare consider what those alternatives would entail. You ignore other specific examples that I've posted of corporations going after kids because you know it's a subject beyond your means or wit but continue assuming you have a point when you refuse to tackle the actual issue. Egregiously, you claim that the internet is NOW a minefield, as if it were better when you could find actual child porn on P2P shit like limewire 10+ years ago (serious, hownu.ru??). You ask retarded "trap" questions that I answer (fully in the knowledge that you were going to ignore most of it and use part of said answer to take a pass at me) and refuse to answer my own.

You're a coward hiding behind children.

 

[Lahey]

Infinitron

When the (ESRB's) 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.

Gambling is legally defined in most countries. PEGI didn't parrot the ESRB and instead deferred to lawmakers, which in turn is why these recently announced investigations are centred in Europe.

A retarded argument about "gun porn" being classified as pornography

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.

A simple search of "hearthstone gambling" will show anyone that particular discussion has existed since long before this loot box variation. The UK's Gambling Commission touched on this in their March 2017 position paper (pdf) which I linked in the OP. The black market where real cash is involced is their focus, much like with the Washington Gambling Commission's problem with Valve, also linked in OP.

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.

Of course they'll find loopholes but to suggest that existing laws shouldn't be applied because loopholes exist is perhaps the most retarded part of this article. Temporary insanity is a loophole for murder. Corporate personhood is a loophole for political donations. Religious freedom is a tax loophole for the scam-cult of scientology etc. etc.

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.

Another useless equivocation instead of talking about the issue at hand. Also: https://food52.com/blog/16431-where-did-all-the-cereal-box-prizes-go

Even more space spent talking about other things.

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.

Indeed. Different countries do have different laws. These investigations are about applying legal definitions as written, not some blogger's headcanon.

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 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.)

The bolded touches on an important issue, which is that the ESRB/PEGI are industry-funded and thus inherently hold a conflict of interest. Much like an HR department whose mandate is to protect employees but in practice their priority is the health of the company and shielding it from criticism, but I digress.

Now if you don’t mind, I’m going back to my single-player games. Those don’t have loot boxes. Yet.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...arth-shadow-of-war.113893/page-6#post-5240240

tl;dr this article is poorly researched, spends more time talking around the issue than addressing it, and is overall one of the dumbest takes on the subject I've had the displeasure of reading.

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.

Agreed. I am cynical about any real impact when so much money is involved, and it ultimately doesn't affect me on a personal level. Nonetheless, large industries have bent the knee over health concerns in the past despite their fleets of highly paid lawyers/lobbyists, and political upsets are so hot right now. It's fun to watch if nothing else, eh fellow llama?

 

[RNGsus]

Let it burn.

 

[Galdred]

Of course the regulation itself won't halt P2W and loot boxes, but the reputation hits against the major players involved alone, and a possible obligation to notify something on the box should have a significant impact by themselves. I doubt Disney is amused by this for instance.

 

[Archibald]

They are not amused at all. Gazillion, company that made couple of F2P cashcows for Disney is already dead:

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news...lion_shuts_down_lays_off_entire_workforce.php

It seems that Marvel Heroes developer Gazillion has been shuttered, with all employees being let go on the day before Thanksgiving.

Comments from employees on social media appear to confirm the news, as does an internal email (picked up by PCGamesN) from Gazillion CEO David von Dorman.

Worse still, multiple Gazillion staffers have reported that those affected aren't even being paid severance or PTO (paid time off).

The studio hit rough waters earlier this week when the Disney-owned Marvel severed ties with the company, and confirmed that Marvel Heroes would be laid to rest.

"We regret to inform our Marvel Heroes fans that we have ended our relationship with Gazillion Entertainment, and that the Marvel Heroes games will be shut down," Marvel explained in an email sent to Kotaku.

"We would like to sincerely thank the players who joined the Marvel Heroes community, and will provide any further updates as they become available."

The game was originally due to shut down in December, but will now be winding down on Friday as a result of the extensive layoffs. We've reached out to Gazillion for comment.

Won't be surprised if EA will have to say bye bye to Star Wars if this continues to escalate.

 

[Lahey]

President of French online gambling regulator ARJEL responds to Senator Jérôme Durain. Google translation: http://www.arjel.fr/IMG/pdf/20171120courrier.pdf

Senator,

Like you, I closely observe the developments on video games and with you I rejoice in the dynamism and success of e-sports competitions. The performances, atmosphere, spirit that characterize them, make it a high level discipline, very close to the sporting world and its values. The recommendations of your report have greatly contributed to this development: the ARJEL was able to play its full role, in a climate of mutual listening which I am still grateful today.

However, and we leave the world of e-sports competitions, the phenomenon of loot boxes (or pouch surprise) that tend to become widespread in video games concerns me, as you. It tends to introduce into this fun activity open to all, a financial dimension that as we had anticipated in 2016, presents risks for our fellow citizens and especially for the youngest. These risks are very similar to those that characterize gambling addiction; it is necessary to be very vigilant.

During our discussions in 2016, we agreed that the purchase of the game's software and the amount of subscriptions and various updates should not be considered as a financial sacrifice, criterion retained with the expectation of gain in the French definition of the game money. In this way, we took into account the basics of a traditional business model based on the remuneration of a service and the purchase of playing time as for other equivalent leisure products.

With loot boxes we enter another dimension. Admittedly, the phenomenon takes multiple forms, it is advisable to sort out and the services of ARJEL are currently used. But the excesses are very present: in this respect, the reactions of the players themselves are a good indicator. The controversies around the game Star Wars Battlefront 2 that you quote, demonstrate it. Since the purchase of the game and the qualities of the player's address do not reach the goal, players feel cheated, especially since the amounts required are significant - about 2100 dollars of purchases of chests random or 4528 hours of play to access the full game -.

For my part and at this stage I identify, in the proliferation of offers of loot boxes currently on the market, three major abuses that should be addressed:
- Quasi-mandatory transactions in the course of the game and which are added to the original purchase price, without the player being clearly informed; this is in the field of consumer protection;
- A totally random product that amounts to introducing a paid lottery game in a video game: this is the basis of the investigation currently conducted by the Belgian regulator on the Star Wars Battlefront 2. It is also a drift compared to usual practices of pay to win: the player knows precisely what he buys and can thus have a better control of his expenses.
- Finally, in some games, the player has the opportunity to resell in real money gains won in the form of virtual objects or levels of games, either on the game site itself, or on a dedicated site; we are here in the hope of gaining money.

If the combination of these three elements tilts into the game of money, each of them alone presents risks that should be treated. To this end, the ARJEL undertakes, besides the realization of a typology of "different risk practices" in development on video games, an action in three parts:
- Work in common with the DGCCRF for all matters relating to consumer protection;
- A joint reflection with several European regulators concerned in the same way as the ARJEL by the development of these games "on the border of gambling": Belgium, the United Kingdom or the Netherlands closely follow the subject ;
- A reflection on the French definition of gambling in the context of the monitoring report currently underway in the National Assembly, within the Committee for Evaluation and Control of Public Policies, on the evolution of the regulation of gambling and gambling in France.

If a regulation of this sector on the model of the ARJEL seems unlikely in the short term, it is however necessary to question the limits of the choice of self-regulation facing an industry which, to satisfy a need for renewal permanent, would be brought to introduce in various forms, always more money and therefore always more risk for our fellow citizens. I will keep you informed of the progress of the work in progress and ask you to believe, Sir, the expression of my highest consideration.

 

[c2007]

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.

Your self-service fails you Mondblut.

Yes, fuck the children, and fuck the morons. Nevertheless, your solution is a fucking pipe dream.

The morons make children faster than they can be bled dry. Prestigious nutbags like yourself and frankly myself don't reproduce because for me I could never afford a decent life for the little fuckers until the last few years, and now I can't be bothered. That leaves us in a deficit situation.

You will never live to see your golden era. Therefore, your selfishness is solipsism, and I hear it's lonely there.

 

[Average Manatee]

Well from my understanding they'd hit only stuff like lootboxes where you have to pay certain amount of shekels for a chance to get something useful. Things like direct micro-transactions where you get specific item that you want should, probably, be fine.

Thou honestly my biggest fear is that some "smart" publishers/developers will try to add additional layer to obfuscate things - hey buy this premium currency that you will transform into this another currency for which you'll buy lootboxes, but you ain't paying real money for lootboxes directly so its totally not gambling. Or something similar, in such case regulators, I suppose, might get mad and fuck up entire freemium model.

"no we aren't selling loot boxes, we're selling 1 hour of premium droprate play!"

Honestly this is a situation where you can't expect the government to regulate properly. The US Congress can't get together every week to discuss the intricacies of (insert newest AAA cash grab). The ESRB was designed so that the industry could self regulate to avoid the possibility of the government coming through with a sledgehammer fucking everything up.

Most likely outcome I see is the ESRB panicking from governments looking into things and deciding something broad but not industry-upsetting (like making all in-game purchases require a 13+ rating) while the industry itself temporarily backs off to where it was in 2015 or w/e before continuing the onslaught against people who want whole finished games in 2019.

 

[Cael]

There are no others here. There's you and me. I'm telling you my opinion on the matter. I'm claiming you have no logic or argument, and you're proving my point by comparing gambling to "drugs" (and never specifying what kind) and child pornography (fucking lol). You complain certificates are useless but offer no alternatives and don't even dare consider what those alternatives would entail. You ignore other specific examples that I've posted of corporations going after kids because you know it's a subject beyond your means or wit but continue assuming you have a point when you refuse to tackle the actual issue. Egregiously, you claim that the internet is NOW a minefield, as if it were better when you could find actual child porn on P2P shit like limewire 10+ years ago (serious, hownu.ru??). You ask retarded "trap" questions that I answer (fully in the knowledge that you were going to ignore most of it and use part of said answer to take a pass at me) and refuse to answer my own.

You're a coward hiding behind children.

Considering I gave a Third Option in this very thread, you are a liar as well as delusional. Goodbye. I am done with talking to deceitful dickheads.

 

[mondblut]

Your self-service fails you Mondblut.

Yes, fuck the children, and fuck the morons. Nevertheless, your solution is a fucking pipe dream.

What solution? I am not offering any. I just gloat at the ruin and suffering of those who deserved it.

The morons make children faster than they can be bled dry.

Good. My cock isn't going to suck itself. Competition among pisspoor teens desperate to buy the newest iphag drives their (not the iphag's) price down.

Prestigious nutbags like yourself and frankly myself don't reproduce because for me I could never afford a decent life for the little fuckers until the last few years, and now I can't be bothered. That leaves us in a deficit situation.

Why should I reproduce? I cling to no illusions that the byproduct of my ejaculations is somehow an extension of myself. The only thing to worry about is having my property pass to the fucking state or to some million-times-removed relative I never knew, but I can always arrange something like a marriage of convenience - a deed to my real estate in exchange for a lifetime of daily blowjobs or whatever.

You will never live to see your golden era. Therefore, your selfishness is solipsism, and I hear it's lonely there.

The golden era is long gone/never was, and solipsism is my second name.

Updated my journal.

 

[Valky]

Good. My cock isn't going to suck itself. Competition among pisspoor teens desperate to buy the newest iphag drives their (not the iphag's) price down.

 

[Lahey]

A strange update from the UK Gambling Commission: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.u.../news/2017/Loot-boxes-within-video-games.aspx

Loot boxes within video games
In recent weeks there’s been much interest in loot boxes within video games. Loot boxes provide players with the opportunity to pay to open a box and acquire an unknown quantity and quality of in-game items for use within the game. Here Tim Miller, Gambling Commission Executive Director, explains our stance on this matter.

In early 2016 we identified loot boxes as a potential risk to children and young people as part of a wider review on our concerns around video games and gambling themes, resulting in publication of a position paper.

Our starting point in deciding our position with any product is to look closely at whether or not it falls under UK gambling law. The definition of what is legally classed as gambling is set by Parliament rather than by us. Our role is to apply that definition to activities that we see and any changes to that definition need to be made by Parliament.

The law sets a line between what is and is not gambling. As the regulator we patrol that line and where an activity crosses it and presents a risk to people, especially children, we have and will take robust action. Earlier this year we successfully brought the first criminal prosecution in this area in relation to Futgalaxy - a website for providing skins gambling to children (skins gambling is explained within the position paper).

A key factor in deciding if that line has been crossed is whether in-game items acquired ‘via a game of chance’ can be considered money or money’s worth. In practical terms this means that where in-game items obtained via loot boxes are confined for use within the game and cannot be cashed out it is unlikely to be caught as a licensable gambling activity. In those cases our legal powers would not allow us to step in.

However, many parents are not interested in whether an activity meets a legal definition of ‘gambling’. Their main concern is whether there is a product out there that could present a risk to their children. We are concerned with the growth in examples where the line between video gaming and gambling is becoming increasingly blurred. Where it does meet the definition of gambling it is our job to ensure that children are protected and we have lots of rules in place, like age verification requirements, to do that.

Where a product does not meet that test to be classed as gambling but could potentially cause harm to children, parents will undoubtedly expect proper protections to be put in place by those that create, sell and regulate those products. We have a long track record in keeping children safe and we are keen to share our experiences and expertise with others that have a similar responsibility. Whether gambling or not, we all have a responsibility to keep children and young people safe.

Those last two paragraphs seem to echo Chris Lee's statements by acknowledging the psychology behind this issue and considering it a health concern, which they admit is outside their purview. It will be interesting to see whether this sentiment is shared by regulators in other countries after concluding their investigations, especially if they accept the offer, which seems like a no-brainer.

 

[Cael]

Good. My cock isn't going to suck itself.

... OK... That went above and beyond. Welcome to the Quiet Box.

 

[Siobhan]

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.

/thread

Adults are responsible for their own actions, children and teenagers shouldn't have access to means they cannot be expected to use responsibly. This includes credit cards, any kind of personal bank account that can be overdrawn, phones that aren't prepaid or on a flatrate plan, and so on. But based on how much my children complain about the draconian rules of the Siobhan household, I guess that these simple rules are too old-fashioned for modern parents.

 

[fantadomat]

Your self-service fails you Mondblut.

Yes, fuck the children, and fuck the morons. Nevertheless, your solution is a fucking pipe dream.

What solution? I am not offering any. I just gloat at the ruin and suffering of those who deserved it.

The morons make children faster than they can be bled dry.

Good. My cock isn't going to suck itself. Competition among pisspoor teens desperate to buy the newest iphag drives their (not the iphag's) price down.

Prestigious nutbags like yourself and frankly myself don't reproduce because for me I could never afford a decent life for the little fuckers until the last few years, and now I can't be bothered. That leaves us in a deficit situation.

Why should I reproduce? I cling to no illusions that the byproduct of my ejaculations is somehow an extension of myself. The only thing to worry about is having my property pass to the fucking state or to some million-times-removed relative I never knew, but I can always arrange something like a marriage of convenience - a deed to my real estate in exchange for a lifetime of daily blowjobs or whatever.

You will never live to see your golden era. Therefore, your selfishness is solipsism, and I hear it's lonely there.

The golden era is long gone/never was, and solipsism is my second name.

Updated my journal.

Come on mate,do your duty and pop up a few nazi kids to fight against decline. Also if you have family,you will be a true patriarch . Don't give in to the globalists propaganda, pop your condoms with a needle before sex.

 

[Cael]

Come on mate,do your duty and pop up a few nazi kids to fight against decline. Also if you have family,you will be a true patriarch . Don't give in to the globalists propaganda, pop your condoms with a needle before sex.

No need. Just use this:

 

[wyes gull]

Considering I gave a Third Option in this very thread, you are a liar as well as delusional. Goodbye. I am done with talking to deceitful dickheads.

Deceitful? This coming from the same person who asks completely unrelated questions while refusing to answer ones made to him, makes retarded implications and inferences, has obnoxiously ignorant opinions on the internet and likes to compare compare gambling to child pornography? I'm deceitful? You "argue" like a shill. I'd say I hope you won't stick around long enough for me to find out whatever it is you're pushing but since you're apparently leaving, I don't think that's going to be a problem. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[Cael]

Deceitful? This coming from the same person who asks completely unrelated questions while refusing to answer ones made to him, makes retarded implications and inferences, has obnoxiously ignorant opinions on the internet and likes to compare compare gambling to child pornography? I'm deceitful? You "argue" like a shill. I'd say I hope you won't stick around long enough for me to find out whatever it is you're pushing but since you're apparently leaving, I don't think that's going to be a problem. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

For continuing to try to deceive people by claiming that I am leaving, you can go into the Quiet Box as well.

 

[FeelTheRads]

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.

lol fuck off

Those who want to ban violent video games use the EXACT same excuses. Waah waaah i can't check everything, waah waah i have a job, waaah waaah muh children gonna turn into killers waaah waaah.
You don't want to see it because you're OK with violent video games, but not with this. In other words, "it's ok to ban what i don't like".

Guess what, you don't turn into a gambler the instant you have a gambling opportunity in front of you. And guess what, you shouldn't give your children access to your money.
If your children spent money from your savings, you are retarded and you don't know how to raise children. Period.

And it's not always about checking if everything is children safe. It's also about educating those children in what they should and should not do. If your kid stole your money to spend on a video game maybe you just didn't fucking educate him.

 

[wyes gull]

:trigglypuff:

That's right, kids. "If you can't see it, it doesn't exist" is the message, here. It's the same sort of "logic" one would use when he's the sort of tard who tells people "I'm done" and "Goodbye" and claims you lie when you, logically, reason that they're leaving. Oh, well.

 

[Mark Richard]

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.

lol fuck off

Those who want to ban violent video games use the EXACT same excuses. Waah waaah i can't check everything, waah waah i have a job, waaah waaah muh children gonna turn into killers waaah waaah.
You don't want to see it because you're OK with violent video games, but not with this. In other words, "it's ok to ban what i don't like".

Slurp piss.

Are you really going to elevate a publisher's monetisation strategy and claim it should enjoy the same protections as an artform?

 

[warpig]

B-but muh free market..lol fuck this freemium shit, they can ban it dont give a fuck. Not that I care about idiots losing their money in some on-line scam, I would like it if devs were FORCED to make games that are sold as a standalone product instead some platform for milking dumb normies :3