You people seriously do not believe this is an issue? Are you going to deny gaming addiction exists too? It has been studied and proven to exist, do you really not believe a compulsive spending addiction cannot come along with it? Why do you think micro-transactions are everywhere now? Because these companies saw how much money mobile gaming was making off people addictive to spending on p2w. These companies have always used psychology to find new ways of addicting gamers, now it has turned to how can we get them addicted to micro-transactions. This issue will get much worse before it gets better, stop denying it.
I agree with Viper. But also, no one is looking at the other side of the coin. Regardless of this kids problems or decisions and whether or not he's embellishing his story to get his 15 minutes of fame or if he really has a problem. He's only one example out of many others who really do have this problem. And the other side of this problem is that companies like EA don't care if they provide you with a solid entertainment experience or whether they destroy your life and family. They WILL attempt to exploit you. And it is deliberate.
Someone with a predisposed condition makes them weak to this preditory marketing. You can point a finger and say "Be stronger fool!" but it doesn't work that way. This is no different than any other bully preying on the helpless. And here we are defending it.
That logic is also the root cause of victim blaming in things like rape "she was at a party drinking, what did she expect???" comes to mind.
It's a way to face only the reality you see from your perspective.
And no law in the US is going to automatically lay blame on parents for their kid getting kidnapped. The fact that you assert, in any general way, that parents would be responsible for such a thing is crazy.
Ok, so you address the extreme and ignore the fact that parents ARE in fact responsible for their childs actions. It's law. Use google and stuff. Oh, and YES! If you haven't taught your kids not to take candy from strangers, then it IS your fault. There are plenty of good reasons that this education happens at home AND in school, and it's for safety. So why do you feel this is any different? Why is this not an education issue.
First off, your example is wholly irrelevant because that entire situation is silly. Kidnappers aren't hanging outta vans offering kids candy to jump in.
Kidnappers are much more intelligent than that, which is why kids become kidnapped DESPITE being told not to trust strangers. You're ignoring that to use the extreme to try and prove your own point, but you're just wrong about it, period.
The parents are not responsible for their kid being kidnapped, because the kidnapper is a predator who is consciously attempting to outwit or overpower a disadvantaged party who isn't aware of the techniques the predator uses. Sound familiar?
Do you think most consumers study the relevant psychology? Marketing consultants certainly study it. Do you think they (the consumers) study marketing and the tricks used to influence their buying decisions? If not, do you think it's effective for parents to attempt to coach their children on how to avoid marketing ploys? Do you think yourself immune because this specific instance of marketing psychology isn't as effective on you? Careful now, you should be prepared to back that statement up if you attempt to assert you are (HINT: nobody is immune, we just don't all fall for the same product marketing).
Ok, let's drop the kidnapper thing. I understand it was silly, and it was intended that way. Now you seem to just me using it as a strawman because you refuse to answer the simple question of whether you believe that the parents are a large part of the problem in this case.
Don't get me wrong, if the kid spent $100 or even $200 on MTs and the parent didn't pick up on it, sure, I guess that could go unnoticed, but when it becomes habitual to the point of $20k, that's negligent.
Am I immune to marketing ploys? Nope! Not at all! Because I've bought more than my fair share of infomercial products which turned out to be shit, do I think that the infomercials should be held responsible? No! When I buy my next informercial product, and it WILL happen, and it turns out to be shit, is that their fault? Nope!
Similarly, if we're talking about a casino, are they predatory because they know that there are problem gamblers and they are taking their money? No. Sorry! Even this guy tells of how he doesn't blame the companies. He's admitting that it's an issue of his own. However, again, he admits to being pre-dispositioned to gambling, so how would regulation help him? You can google trading card addiction and find similar stories. It's sad, but regulation still isn't the answer. I hope that the community outcry has at least sent a message that bat-shit-crazy progression mechanics aren't acceptable, but as far as loot crates go, I don't see them going anywhere.
You can argue it till the cows come home.
IMHO lack of parental guidance does not give companies license to financially exploit children with gambling style monetization.
If minors are caught in a pub/bar, the establishment is fined, they are held responsible not the parents. The fine is $500 per offence where I live.
Same should be true for the gaming companies. They want these gambling style monetization models, then keep the kids out or pay the fucking fine.
Yes, when children commit offences like vandalism, parents are held financially responsible and rightly so.
Not the same thing.
You can argue till the cows come home too, but you can't convince me it's gambling. I guess we're at an impasse. I will ask you this, though, has regulation stopped drinking, smoking, and drugs with teens? Nope! So I don't know what your expectation is here. What's worse is that there is no way that a publisher can knowingly sell to a minor, since they can't tell who is on the other side of the screen. There are parental controls in place for this sort of thing. If the parents don't use them, then where is the liability?
As I said above I support personal INFORMED decisions... so can we all agree that people should be given the information to easily make those decisions? If a game has micro-transactions.. list it along with the current cost of purchasing all content. Is that such a horrible thing to ask?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
That logic is also the root cause of victim blaming in things like rape "she was at a party drinking, what did she expect???" comes to mind.
It's a way to face only the reality you see from your perspective.
And no law in the US is going to automatically lay blame on parents for their kid getting kidnapped. The fact that you assert, in any general way, that parents would be responsible for such a thing is crazy.
Ok, so you address the extreme and ignore the fact that parents ARE in fact responsible for their childs actions. It's law. Use google and stuff. Oh, and YES! If you haven't taught your kids not to take candy from strangers, then it IS your fault. There are plenty of good reasons that this education happens at home AND in school, and it's for safety. So why do you feel this is any different? Why is this not an education issue.
First off, your example is wholly irrelevant because that entire situation is silly. Kidnappers aren't hanging outta vans offering kids candy to jump in.
Kidnappers are much more intelligent than that, which is why kids become kidnapped DESPITE being told not to trust strangers. You're ignoring that to use the extreme to try and prove your own point, but you're just wrong about it, period.
The parents are not responsible for their kid being kidnapped, because the kidnapper is a predator who is consciously attempting to outwit or overpower a disadvantaged party who isn't aware of the techniques the predator uses. Sound familiar?
Do you think most consumers study the relevant psychology? Marketing consultants certainly study it. Do you think they (the consumers) study marketing and the tricks used to influence their buying decisions? If not, do you think it's effective for parents to attempt to coach their children on how to avoid marketing ploys? Do you think yourself immune because this specific instance of marketing psychology isn't as effective on you? Careful now, you should be prepared to back that statement up if you attempt to assert you are (HINT: nobody is immune, we just don't all fall for the same product marketing).
Ok, let's drop the kidnapper thing. I understand it was silly, and it was intended that way. Now you seem to just me using it as a strawman because you refuse to answer the simple question of whether you believe that the parents are a large part of the problem in this case.
Don't get me wrong, if the kid spent $100 or even $200 on MTs and the parent didn't pick up on it, sure, I guess that could go unnoticed, but when it becomes habitual to the point of $20k, that's negligent.
Am I immune to marketing ploys? Nope! Not at all! Because I've bought more than my fair share of infomercial products which turned out to be shit, do I think that the infomercials should be held responsible? No! When I buy my next informercial product, and it WILL happen, and it turns out to be shit, is that their fault? Nope!
Similarly, if we're talking about a casino, are they predatory because they know that there are problem gamblers and they are taking their money? No. Sorry! Even this guy tells of how he doesn't blame the companies. He's admitting that it's an issue of his own. However, again, he admits to being pre-dispositioned to gambling, so how would regulation help him? You can google trading card addiction and find similar stories. It's sad, but regulation still isn't the answer. I hope that the community outcry has at least sent a message that bat-shit-crazy progression mechanics aren't acceptable, but as far as loot crates go, I don't see them going anywhere.
You can argue it till the cows come home.
IMHO lack of parental guidance does not give companies license to financially exploit children with gambling style monetization.
If minors are caught in a pub/bar, the establishment is fined, they are held responsible not the parents. The fine is $500 per offence where I live.
Same should be true for the gaming companies. They want these gambling style monetization models, then keep the kids out or pay the fucking fine.
Yes, when children commit offences like vandalism, parents are held financially responsible and rightly so.
Not the same thing.
You can argue till the cows come home too, but you can't convince me it's gambling. I guess we're at an impasse. I will ask you this, though, has regulation stopped drinking, smoking, and drugs with teens? Nope! So I don't know what your expectation is here. What's worse is that there is no way that a publisher can knowingly sell to a minor, since they can't tell who is on the other side of the screen. There are parental controls in place for this sort of thing. If the parents don't use them, then where is the liability?
As I said above I support personal INFORMED decisions... so can we all agree that people should be given the information to easily make those decisions? If a game has micro-transactions.. list it along with the current cost of purchasing all content. Is that such a horrible thing to ask?
I have no problems with something like marking on the packaging that the game contains micro-transactions. It's similar to how the mobile market (on the Apple store anyway) differentiates between Free and Free w/ Microtransactions (Free vs Get).
The problem with listing a total cost is what about DLC? What about other skins that are introduced? For a product with an expeced shelf life of 3-6 months, that's great. However, for something like Diablo or GTA that plans to exist indefinitely, or for years anyway, what do you do? List what you have planned and then launch a new game with new stuff every 6 months? This is the sort of thing that gets messy.
Anyway, I'm all for tossing a warning on the box. Most parents should be aware of these things as it is, since the mobile market has been doing this for a decade. So I think it's an informative thing. The issue is that with almost every game having DLC of some sort, how do you distinguish it to make it meaningful?
DLCs have descriptions and whole media campaigns telling you what you are getting for the purchase price or even for free when they are released.
Its not, hey we have a dlc but when you buy it there is a chance you wont get the dlc you want and get something else. What game exists where the dlc is RNG purchase and you may not end up with the dlc?
Cosmetic items.....offer both the rng loot box for those that want to gamble and offer each winnable item for direct purchase. Then everyone gets what they want. But instead companies go for RNG gambling only because it generates more money.
Kids drink underage, using the logic I see here they should be able to just go buy it at any age. After all, the parents are responsible right. Looks at all the drinking related deaths that happens every year.
Sadly humans don't always do what they should and others have to pick up the pieces. No one is isolated from the affects of gambling even though they think they are. Some of your taxes goes to fight addiction.
Your choice. Deal with it before the kid becomes an adult or let it be and don't complain when they raise your taxes to pay for the fall-out of addiction.
I am so sick and tired of people using 'the kids' in this arguement. I know goddamn good and well that its not 'about the kids' that they give a fuck about. they want lootboxes gone across the board by any means possible.
that said, the act of me pulling the level on a slot machine is fine, what is NOT fine is floating a car in front of my face, telling me how baddly I need that car, how cool it will make me, and how it very possible I can win that car by pulling the handle.
its the advertising that is the problem
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
That logic is also the root cause of victim blaming in things like rape "she was at a party drinking, what did she expect???" comes to mind.
It's a way to face only the reality you see from your perspective.
And no law in the US is going to automatically lay blame on parents for their kid getting kidnapped. The fact that you assert, in any general way, that parents would be responsible for such a thing is crazy.
Ok, so you address the extreme and ignore the fact that parents ARE in fact responsible for their childs actions. It's law. Use google and stuff. Oh, and YES! If you haven't taught your kids not to take candy from strangers, then it IS your fault. There are plenty of good reasons that this education happens at home AND in school, and it's for safety. So why do you feel this is any different? Why is this not an education issue.
First off, your example is wholly irrelevant because that entire situation is silly. Kidnappers aren't hanging outta vans offering kids candy to jump in.
Kidnappers are much more intelligent than that, which is why kids become kidnapped DESPITE being told not to trust strangers. You're ignoring that to use the extreme to try and prove your own point, but you're just wrong about it, period.
The parents are not responsible for their kid being kidnapped, because the kidnapper is a predator who is consciously attempting to outwit or overpower a disadvantaged party who isn't aware of the techniques the predator uses. Sound familiar?
Do you think most consumers study the relevant psychology? Marketing consultants certainly study it. Do you think they (the consumers) study marketing and the tricks used to influence their buying decisions? If not, do you think it's effective for parents to attempt to coach their children on how to avoid marketing ploys? Do you think yourself immune because this specific instance of marketing psychology isn't as effective on you? Careful now, you should be prepared to back that statement up if you attempt to assert you are (HINT: nobody is immune, we just don't all fall for the same product marketing).
Ok, let's drop the kidnapper thing. I understand it was silly, and it was intended that way. Now you seem to just me using it as a strawman because you refuse to answer the simple question of whether you believe that the parents are a large part of the problem in this case.
Don't get me wrong, if the kid spent $100 or even $200 on MTs and the parent didn't pick up on it, sure, I guess that could go unnoticed, but when it becomes habitual to the point of $20k, that's negligent.
Am I immune to marketing ploys? Nope! Not at all! Because I've bought more than my fair share of infomercial products which turned out to be shit, do I think that the infomercials should be held responsible? No! When I buy my next informercial product, and it WILL happen, and it turns out to be shit, is that their fault? Nope!
Similarly, if we're talking about a casino, are they predatory because they know that there are problem gamblers and they are taking their money? No. Sorry! Even this guy tells of how he doesn't blame the companies. He's admitting that it's an issue of his own. However, again, he admits to being pre-dispositioned to gambling, so how would regulation help him? You can google trading card addiction and find similar stories. It's sad, but regulation still isn't the answer. I hope that the community outcry has at least sent a message that bat-shit-crazy progression mechanics aren't acceptable, but as far as loot crates go, I don't see them going anywhere.
You can argue it till the cows come home.
IMHO lack of parental guidance does not give companies license to financially exploit children with gambling style monetization.
If minors are caught in a pub/bar, the establishment is fined, they are held responsible not the parents. The fine is $500 per offence where I live.
Same should be true for the gaming companies. They want these gambling style monetization models, then keep the kids out or pay the fucking fine.
Yes, when children commit offences like vandalism, parents are held financially responsible and rightly so.
Not the same thing.
You can argue till the cows come home too, but you can't convince me it's gambling. I guess we're at an impasse. I will ask you this, though, has regulation stopped drinking, smoking, and drugs with teens? Nope! So I don't know what your expectation is here. What's worse is that there is no way that a publisher can knowingly sell to a minor, since they can't tell who is on the other side of the screen. There are parental controls in place for this sort of thing. If the parents don't use them, then where is the liability?
Laws and regulation hasn't stopped murder or robbery either.
These companies want to make 100's of millions/billions on MT/loot boxes?
Maybe they should invest in a reliable system to keep minors out.
I didn't say it was gambling I said it was gambling styled. Not everyone's a junkie either but yet things like marijuana are illegal. Reasoning... they call it a gateway drug.
Loot boxes are a gateway to gambling addiction. I'd bet a researcher would have an easy time with that one.
That logic is also the root cause of victim blaming in things like rape "she was at a party drinking, what did she expect???" comes to mind.
It's a way to face only the reality you see from your perspective.
And no law in the US is going to automatically lay blame on parents for their kid getting kidnapped. The fact that you assert, in any general way, that parents would be responsible for such a thing is crazy.
Ok, so you address the extreme and ignore the fact that parents ARE in fact responsible for their childs actions. It's law. Use google and stuff. Oh, and YES! If you haven't taught your kids not to take candy from strangers, then it IS your fault. There are plenty of good reasons that this education happens at home AND in school, and it's for safety. So why do you feel this is any different? Why is this not an education issue.
First off, your example is wholly irrelevant because that entire situation is silly. Kidnappers aren't hanging outta vans offering kids candy to jump in.
Kidnappers are much more intelligent than that, which is why kids become kidnapped DESPITE being told not to trust strangers. You're ignoring that to use the extreme to try and prove your own point, but you're just wrong about it, period.
The parents are not responsible for their kid being kidnapped, because the kidnapper is a predator who is consciously attempting to outwit or overpower a disadvantaged party who isn't aware of the techniques the predator uses. Sound familiar?
Do you think most consumers study the relevant psychology? Marketing consultants certainly study it. Do you think they (the consumers) study marketing and the tricks used to influence their buying decisions? If not, do you think it's effective for parents to attempt to coach their children on how to avoid marketing ploys? Do you think yourself immune because this specific instance of marketing psychology isn't as effective on you? Careful now, you should be prepared to back that statement up if you attempt to assert you are (HINT: nobody is immune, we just don't all fall for the same product marketing).
Ok, let's drop the kidnapper thing. I understand it was silly, and it was intended that way. Now you seem to just me using it as a strawman because you refuse to answer the simple question of whether you believe that the parents are a large part of the problem in this case.
Don't get me wrong, if the kid spent $100 or even $200 on MTs and the parent didn't pick up on it, sure, I guess that could go unnoticed, but when it becomes habitual to the point of $20k, that's negligent.
Am I immune to marketing ploys? Nope! Not at all! Because I've bought more than my fair share of infomercial products which turned out to be shit, do I think that the infomercials should be held responsible? No! When I buy my next informercial product, and it WILL happen, and it turns out to be shit, is that their fault? Nope!
Similarly, if we're talking about a casino, are they predatory because they know that there are problem gamblers and they are taking their money? No. Sorry! Even this guy tells of how he doesn't blame the companies. He's admitting that it's an issue of his own. However, again, he admits to being pre-dispositioned to gambling, so how would regulation help him? You can google trading card addiction and find similar stories. It's sad, but regulation still isn't the answer. I hope that the community outcry has at least sent a message that bat-shit-crazy progression mechanics aren't acceptable, but as far as loot crates go, I don't see them going anywhere.
You can argue it till the cows come home.
IMHO lack of parental guidance does not give companies license to financially exploit children with gambling style monetization.
If minors are caught in a pub/bar, the establishment is fined, they are held responsible not the parents. The fine is $500 per offence where I live.
Same should be true for the gaming companies. They want these gambling style monetization models, then keep the kids out or pay the fucking fine.
Yes, when children commit offences like vandalism, parents are held financially responsible and rightly so.
Not the same thing.
You can argue till the cows come home too, but you can't convince me it's gambling. I guess we're at an impasse. I will ask you this, though, has regulation stopped drinking, smoking, and drugs with teens? Nope! So I don't know what your expectation is here. What's worse is that there is no way that a publisher can knowingly sell to a minor, since they can't tell who is on the other side of the screen. There are parental controls in place for this sort of thing. If the parents don't use them, then where is the liability?
Laws and regulation hasn't stopped murder or robbery either.
These companies want to make 100's of millions/billions on MT/loot boxes?
Maybe they should invest in a reliable system to keep minors out.
I didn't say it was gambling I said it was gambling styled. Not everyone's a junkie either but yet things like marijuana are illegal. Reasoning... they call it a gateway drug.
Loot boxes are a gateway to gambling addiction. I'd bet a researcher would have an easy time with that one.
the right wing christian not have a fucking clue group called marijuana a 'gateway' drug. they are fucking wrong.
we really should not be advocating regulating lootboxes. horrible idea. we should just not be buying these fucking games in the first place
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Ok, let's drop the kidnapper thing. I understand it was silly, and it was intended that way. Now you seem to just me using it as a strawman because you refuse to answer the simple question of whether you believe that the parents are a large part of the problem in this case.
Don't get me wrong, if the kid spent $100 or even $200 on MTs and the parent didn't pick up on it, sure, I guess that could go unnoticed, but when it becomes habitual to the point of $20k, that's negligent.
Am I immune to marketing ploys? Nope! Not at all! Because I've bought more than my fair share of infomercial products which turned out to be shit, do I think that the infomercials should be held responsible? No! When I buy my next informercial product, and it WILL happen, and it turns out to be shit, is that their fault? Nope!
Similarly, if we're talking about a casino, are they predatory because they know that there are problem gamblers and they are taking their money? No. Sorry! Even this guy tells of how he doesn't blame the companies. He's admitting that it's an issue of his own. However, again, he admits to being pre-dispositioned to gambling, so how would regulation help him? You can google trading card addiction and find similar stories. It's sad, but regulation still isn't the answer. I hope that the community outcry has at least sent a message that bat-shit-crazy progression mechanics aren't acceptable, but as far as loot crates go, I don't see them going anywhere.
You can argue it till the cows come home.
IMHO lack of parental guidance does not give companies license to financially exploit children with gambling style monetization.
If minors are caught in a pub/bar, the establishment is fined, they are held responsible not the parents. The fine is $500 per offence where I live.
Same should be true for the gaming companies. They want these gambling style monetization models, then keep the kids out or pay the fucking fine.
Yes, when children commit offences like vandalism, parents are held financially responsible and rightly so.
Not the same thing.
You can argue till the cows come home too, but you can't convince me it's gambling. I guess we're at an impasse. I will ask you this, though, has regulation stopped drinking, smoking, and drugs with teens? Nope! So I don't know what your expectation is here. What's worse is that there is no way that a publisher can knowingly sell to a minor, since they can't tell who is on the other side of the screen. There are parental controls in place for this sort of thing. If the parents don't use them, then where is the liability?
Laws and regulation hasn't stopped murder or robbery either.
These companies want to make 100's of millions/billions on MT/loot boxes?
Maybe they should invest in a reliable system to keep minors out.
I didn't say it was gambling I said it was gambling styled. Not everyone's a junkie either but yet things like marijuana are illegal. Reasoning... they call it a gateway drug.
Loot boxes are a gateway to gambling addiction. I'd bet a researcher would have an easy time with that one.
First of all, yes, I bet a company wants to make money. That's pretty much what they do. Why would they create systems that would restrict people from accessing their stores?
Secondly, the whole marijuana as a gateway drug is a lie like sitting too close to the TV or masturbation growing hairy palms. If you'd like, why not google why marijuana was outlawed in the first place and have a good laugh. I don't smoke it myself, but I have learned a lot about the history of it, and it's actually quite shocking.
Third, again, there is no proof to what you're saying. I'd be willing to bet that a research would NOT. Actually, there are a number of psychologists who HAVE stated that they aren't gambling. They do rely on similar psychology, but it's not gambling. Also, these types of psychology are used in a myriad of well-accepted products, so the risk of addiction is actually quite limited.
Remember that compulsive gambling is a mental disorder. It's not going to be triggered by loot boxes. If anything, loot boxes might help diagnose a problem gambler earlier.
That logic is also the root cause of victim blaming in things like rape "she was at a party drinking, what did she expect???" comes to mind.
It's a way to face only the reality you see from your perspective.
And no law in the US is going to automatically lay blame on parents for their kid getting kidnapped. The fact that you assert, in any general way, that parents would be responsible for such a thing is crazy.
Ok, so you address the extreme and ignore the fact that parents ARE in fact responsible for their childs actions. It's law. Use google and stuff. Oh, and YES! If you haven't taught your kids not to take candy from strangers, then it IS your fault. There are plenty of good reasons that this education happens at home AND in school, and it's for safety. So why do you feel this is any different? Why is this not an education issue.
First off, your example is wholly irrelevant because that entire situation is silly. Kidnappers aren't hanging outta vans offering kids candy to jump in.
Kidnappers are much more intelligent than that, which is why kids become kidnapped DESPITE being told not to trust strangers. You're ignoring that to use the extreme to try and prove your own point, but you're just wrong about it, period.
The parents are not responsible for their kid being kidnapped, because the kidnapper is a predator who is consciously attempting to outwit or overpower a disadvantaged party who isn't aware of the techniques the predator uses. Sound familiar?
Do you think most consumers study the relevant psychology? Marketing consultants certainly study it. Do you think they (the consumers) study marketing and the tricks used to influence their buying decisions? If not, do you think it's effective for parents to attempt to coach their children on how to avoid marketing ploys? Do you think yourself immune because this specific instance of marketing psychology isn't as effective on you? Careful now, you should be prepared to back that statement up if you attempt to assert you are (HINT: nobody is immune, we just don't all fall for the same product marketing).
Ok, let's drop the kidnapper thing. I understand it was silly, and it was intended that way. Now you seem to just me using it as a strawman because you refuse to answer the simple question of whether you believe that the parents are a large part of the problem in this case.
Don't get me wrong, if the kid spent $100 or even $200 on MTs and the parent didn't pick up on it, sure, I guess that could go unnoticed, but when it becomes habitual to the point of $20k, that's negligent.
Am I immune to marketing ploys? Nope! Not at all! Because I've bought more than my fair share of infomercial products which turned out to be shit, do I think that the infomercials should be held responsible? No! When I buy my next informercial product, and it WILL happen, and it turns out to be shit, is that their fault? Nope!
Similarly, if we're talking about a casino, are they predatory because they know that there are problem gamblers and they are taking their money? No. Sorry! Even this guy tells of how he doesn't blame the companies. He's admitting that it's an issue of his own. However, again, he admits to being pre-dispositioned to gambling, so how would regulation help him? You can google trading card addiction and find similar stories. It's sad, but regulation still isn't the answer. I hope that the community outcry has at least sent a message that bat-shit-crazy progression mechanics aren't acceptable, but as far as loot crates go, I don't see them going anywhere.
You can argue it till the cows come home.
IMHO lack of parental guidance does not give companies license to financially exploit children with gambling style monetization.
If minors are caught in a pub/bar, the establishment is fined, they are held responsible not the parents. The fine is $500 per offence where I live.
Same should be true for the gaming companies. They want these gambling style monetization models, then keep the kids out or pay the fucking fine.
Yes, when children commit offences like vandalism, parents are held financially responsible and rightly so.
Not the same thing.
You can argue till the cows come home too, but you can't convince me it's gambling. I guess we're at an impasse. I will ask you this, though, has regulation stopped drinking, smoking, and drugs with teens? Nope! So I don't know what your expectation is here. What's worse is that there is no way that a publisher can knowingly sell to a minor, since they can't tell who is on the other side of the screen. There are parental controls in place for this sort of thing. If the parents don't use them, then where is the liability?
As I said above I support personal INFORMED decisions... so can we all agree that people should be given the information to easily make those decisions? If a game has micro-transactions.. list it along with the current cost of purchasing all content. Is that such a horrible thing to ask?
I have no problems with something like marking on the packaging that the game contains micro-transactions. It's similar to how the mobile market (on the Apple store anyway) differentiates between Free and Free w/ Microtransactions (Free vs Get).
The problem with listing a total cost is what about DLC? What about other skins that are introduced? For a product with an expeced shelf life of 3-6 months, that's great. However, for something like Diablo or GTA that plans to exist indefinitely, or for years anyway, what do you do? List what you have planned and then launch a new game with new stuff every 6 months? This is the sort of thing that gets messy.
Anyway, I'm all for tossing a warning on the box. Most parents should be aware of these things as it is, since the mobile market has been doing this for a decade. So I think it's an informative thing. The issue is that with almost every game having DLC of some sort, how do you distinguish it to make it meaningful?
The box would include the costs of all the content at launch, the purchase website would be regularly updated. Besides, the days of box copies are coming to an end. There is no reason the information can't be available in real time on their website. Same for the odds of lootboxes. Simply give people the information to make rational and informed decisions.
PS: Is there anyone who thinks giving people this information related to true cost and odds would be a bad thing? If so Id be interested in hearing why...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
That logic is also the root cause of victim blaming in things like rape "she was at a party drinking, what did she expect???" comes to mind.
It's a way to face only the reality you see from your perspective.
And no law in the US is going to automatically lay blame on parents for their kid getting kidnapped. The fact that you assert, in any general way, that parents would be responsible for such a thing is crazy.
Ok, so you address the extreme and ignore the fact that parents ARE in fact responsible for their childs actions. It's law. Use google and stuff. Oh, and YES! If you haven't taught your kids not to take candy from strangers, then it IS your fault. There are plenty of good reasons that this education happens at home AND in school, and it's for safety. So why do you feel this is any different? Why is this not an education issue.
First off, your example is wholly irrelevant because that entire situation is silly. Kidnappers aren't hanging outta vans offering kids candy to jump in.
Kidnappers are much more intelligent than that, which is why kids become kidnapped DESPITE being told not to trust strangers. You're ignoring that to use the extreme to try and prove your own point, but you're just wrong about it, period.
The parents are not responsible for their kid being kidnapped, because the kidnapper is a predator who is consciously attempting to outwit or overpower a disadvantaged party who isn't aware of the techniques the predator uses. Sound familiar?
Do you think most consumers study the relevant psychology? Marketing consultants certainly study it. Do you think they (the consumers) study marketing and the tricks used to influence their buying decisions? If not, do you think it's effective for parents to attempt to coach their children on how to avoid marketing ploys? Do you think yourself immune because this specific instance of marketing psychology isn't as effective on you? Careful now, you should be prepared to back that statement up if you attempt to assert you are (HINT: nobody is immune, we just don't all fall for the same product marketing).
Ok, let's drop the kidnapper thing. I understand it was silly, and it was intended that way. Now you seem to just me using it as a strawman because you refuse to answer the simple question of whether you believe that the parents are a large part of the problem in this case.
Don't get me wrong, if the kid spent $100 or even $200 on MTs and the parent didn't pick up on it, sure, I guess that could go unnoticed, but when it becomes habitual to the point of $20k, that's negligent.
Am I immune to marketing ploys? Nope! Not at all! Because I've bought more than my fair share of infomercial products which turned out to be shit, do I think that the infomercials should be held responsible? No! When I buy my next informercial product, and it WILL happen, and it turns out to be shit, is that their fault? Nope!
Similarly, if we're talking about a casino, are they predatory because they know that there are problem gamblers and they are taking their money? No. Sorry! Even this guy tells of how he doesn't blame the companies. He's
You can argue it till the cows come home.
IMHO lack of parental guidance does not give companies license to financially exploit children with gambling style monetization.
If minors are caught in a pub/bar, the establishment is fined, they are held responsible not the parents. The fine is $500 per offence where I live.
Same should be true for the gaming companies. They want these gambling style monetization models, then keep the kids out or pay the fucking fine.
Yes, when children commit offences like vandalism, parents are held financially responsible and rightly so.
Not the same thing.
You can argue till the cows come home too, but you can't convince me it's gambling. I guess we're at an impasse. I will ask you this, though, has regulation stopped drinking, smoking, and drugs with teens? Nope! So I don't know what your expectation is here. What's worse is that there is no way that a publisher can knowingly sell to a minor, since they can't tell who is on the other side of the screen. There are parental controls in place for this sort of thing. If the parents don't use them, then where is the liability?
Laws and regulation hasn't stopped murder or robbery either.
These companies want to make 100's of millions/billions on MT/loot boxes?
Maybe they should invest in a reliable system to keep minors out.
I didn't say it was gambling I said it was gambling styled. Not everyone's a junkie either but yet things like marijuana are illegal. Reasoning... they call it a gateway drug.
Loot boxes are a gateway to gambling addiction. I'd bet a researcher would have an easy time with that one.
The only way to ensure reliable authentication is to have no remove internet anonymity and have a biometric ID associated with an online ID.
There is no easy, inexpensive, or most importantly non-intrusive solution to identity verification. The intent here should be to do no more harm than is being done. Why do we need intrusive regulation where no problem has been evidenced.
The only verifiable problem we've seen is that people don't want to feel forced to pay more for games to get the whole package. All this talk about gambling and drugs is irrelevant and specious until there are facts and data to support evidence of a problem. All these issues are hypothetical scare scenarios designed to prey upon our sense of survival.
The problem isn't that people don't like loot boxes or they're "bad". The problem is a lot of people don't mind living with them and will play and pay for the game. Therefore since the people who don't like it lost the argument and those nasty games still get made, they want to legislate their way "for the good of the children and those who are too stupid to agree with them".
Actually... the battle isn't "lost". It's just getting started. People sat back and didn't take notice of what was happening. Now they have. The games not over my friend. Far from it.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The box would include the costs of all the content at launch, the purchase website would be regularly updated. Besides, the days of box copies are coming to an end. There is no reason the information can't be available in real time on their website. Same for the odds of lootboxes. Simply give people the information to make rational and informed decisions.
now there is an idea that is much better and completely reasonable.
In my view its not Gambling itself that gets people into trouble its how its presented that is the problem
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I have no problems with something like marking on the packaging that the game contains micro-transactions. It's similar to how the mobile market (on the Apple store anyway) differentiates between Free and Free w/ Microtransactions (Free vs Get).
The problem with listing a total cost is what about DLC? What about other skins that are introduced? For a product with an expeced shelf life of 3-6 months, that's great. However, for something like Diablo or GTA that plans to exist indefinitely, or for years anyway, what do you do? List what you have planned and then launch a new game with new stuff every 6 months? This is the sort of thing that gets messy.
Anyway, I'm all for tossing a warning on the box. Most parents should be aware of these things as it is, since the mobile market has been doing this for a decade. So I think it's an informative thing. The issue is that with almost every game having DLC of some sort, how do you distinguish it to make it meaningful?
The box would include the costs of all the content at launch, the purchase website would be regularly updated. Besides, the days of box copies are coming to an end. There is no reason the information can't be available in real time on their website. Same for the odds of lootboxes. Simply give people the information to make rational and informed decisions.
PS: Is there anyone who thinks giving people this information related to true cost and odds would be a bad thing? If so Id be interested in hearing why...
Yeah, I would be in favor of odds. It ends up coming out anyway from YouTube and other sources, so why not?
I do think all RNG mechanics, basically all loot tables in a game, should have their odds and drop rates published in an easy to read readily accessible place, from within the game. Based on what the developer charges for various services there should be an estimated breakdown of a typical cost over time.
So in games with mandatory subs loot tables and boss / raid drops would have their drop rates published. The cost and time it would take to earn that (chase) item would be displayed, based on sub-fee/mo + any DLC fees (do you have to buy the xpac).
If a game sells loot crates or digital goods behind a secondary or tertiary currency (real money to in game currencies) they would need to publish a graph showing estimated costs and number of "loot crates needed" compared to the real world results from actual purchases.
This should be available publicly with some detail for auditing purposes and as a very short review summary for easy customer reading, such as, "It typically takes 47 game hours to earn this raid item. The average player achieves that 47 hours over 3.5 months." OR "This chances of obtaining this items X% and takes Y number of loot crates, costing Z dollars."
This system works for many labeled goods and something like it can work as a self-regulatory (or not) measure. With full disclosure on estimated costs, and objective auditing, consumers can make their own decisions.
I agree.
Its how table top D&D was so I dont think its unreasonable request at all. plus 'the kids' people are so concerned about would learn math
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Actually... the battle isn't "lost". It's just getting started. People sat back and didn't take notice of what was happening. Now they have. The games not over my friend. Far from it.
but here the thing...good developers dont do loot boxes, bad developer do.
see a pattern?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Ok, let's drop the kidnapper thing. I understand it was silly, and it was intended that way. Now you seem to just me using it as a strawman because you refuse to answer the simple question of whether you believe that the parents are a large part of the problem in this case.
Don't get me wrong, if the kid spent $100 or even $200 on MTs and the parent didn't pick up on it, sure, I guess that could go unnoticed, but when it becomes habitual to the point of $20k, that's negligent.
Am I immune to marketing ploys? Nope! Not at all! Because I've bought more than my fair share of infomercial products which turned out to be shit, do I think that the infomercials should be held responsible? No! When I buy my next informercial product, and it WILL happen, and it turns out to be shit, is that their fault? Nope!
Similarly, if we're talking about a casino, are they predatory because they know that there are problem gamblers and they are taking their money? No. Sorry! Even this guy tells of how he doesn't blame the companies. He's admitting that it's an issue of his own. However, again, he admits to being pre-dispositioned to gambling, so how would regulation help him? You can google trading card addiction and find similar stories. It's sad, but regulation still isn't the answer. I hope that the community outcry has at least sent a message that bat-shit-crazy progression mechanics aren't acceptable, but as far as loot crates go, I don't see them going anywhere.
You can argue it till the cows come home.
IMHO lack of parental guidance does not give companies license to financially exploit children with gambling style monetization.
If minors are caught in a pub/bar, the establishment is fined, they are held responsible not the parents. The fine is $500 per offence where I live.
Same should be true for the gaming companies. They want these gambling style monetization models, then keep the kids out or pay the fucking fine.
Yes, when children commit offences like vandalism, parents are held financially responsible and rightly so.
Not the same thing.
You can argue till the cows come home too, but you can't convince me it's gambling. I guess we're at an impasse. I will ask you this, though, has regulation stopped drinking, smoking, and drugs with teens? Nope! So I don't know what your expectation is here. What's worse is that there is no way that a publisher can knowingly sell to a minor, since they can't tell who is on the other side of the screen. There are parental controls in place for this sort of thing. If the parents don't use them, then where is the liability?
Laws and regulation hasn't stopped murder or robbery either.
These companies want to make 100's of millions/billions on MT/loot boxes?
Maybe they should invest in a reliable system to keep minors out.
I didn't say it was gambling I said it was gambling styled. Not everyone's a junkie either but yet things like marijuana are illegal. Reasoning... they call it a gateway drug.
Loot boxes are a gateway to gambling addiction. I'd bet a researcher would have an easy time with that one.
First of all, yes, I bet a company wants to make money. That's pretty much what they do. Why would they create systems that would restrict people from accessing their stores?
Secondly, the whole marijuana as a gateway drug is a lie like sitting too close to the TV or masturbation growing hairy palms. If you'd like, why not google why marijuana was outlawed in the first place and have a good laugh. I don't smoke it myself, but I have learned a lot about the history of it, and it's actually quite shocking.
Third, again, there is no proof to what you're saying. I'd be willing to bet that a research would NOT. Actually, there are a number of psychologists who HAVE stated that they aren't gambling. They do rely on similar psychology, but it's not gambling. Also, these types of psychology are used in a myriad of well-accepted products, so the risk of addiction is actually quite limited.
Remember that compulsive gambling is a mental disorder. It's not going to be triggered by loot boxes. If anything, loot boxes might help diagnose a problem gambler earlier.
"For years, critics and gaming psychologists have criticized loot boxes. While it may not legally be gambling, they say, the same intermittent nature of rewards and spending is in place. “If you put it in fundamental terms, it’s really the same thing,” said Kimberly Young, a licensed psychologist and founder of the Center for Internet Addiction. “It’s called gambling.”
Ok, let's drop the kidnapper thing. I understand it was silly, and it was intended that way. Now you seem to just me using it as a strawman because you refuse to answer the simple question of whether you believe that the parents are a large part of the problem in this case.
Don't get me wrong, if the kid spent $100 or even $200 on MTs and the parent didn't pick up on it, sure, I guess that could go unnoticed, but when it becomes habitual to the point of $20k, that's negligent.
Am I immune to marketing ploys? Nope! Not at all! Because I've bought more than my fair share of infomercial products which turned out to be shit, do I think that the infomercials should be held responsible? No! When I buy my next informercial product, and it WILL happen, and it turns out to be shit, is that their fault? Nope!
Similarly, if we're talking about a casino, are they predatory because they know that there are problem gamblers and they are taking their money? No. Sorry! Even this guy tells of how he doesn't blame the companies. He's admitting that it's an issue of his own. However, again, he admits to being pre-dispositioned to gambling, so how would regulation help him? You can google trading card addiction and find similar stories. It's sad, but regulation still isn't the answer. I hope that the community outcry has at least sent a message that bat-shit-crazy progression mechanics aren't acceptable, but as far as loot crates go, I don't see them going anywhere.
You can argue it till the cows come home.
IMHO lack of parental guidance does not give companies license to financially exploit children with gambling style monetization.
If minors are caught in a pub/bar, the establishment is fined, they are held responsible not the parents. The fine is $500 per offence where I live.
Same should be true for the gaming companies. They want these gambling style monetization models, then keep the kids out or pay the fucking fine.
Yes, when children commit offences like vandalism, parents are held financially responsible and rightly so.
Not the same thing.
You can argue till the cows come home too, but you can't convince me it's gambling. I guess we're at an impasse. I will ask you this, though, has regulation stopped drinking, smoking, and drugs with teens? Nope! So I don't know what your expectation is here. What's worse is that there is no way that a publisher can knowingly sell to a minor, since they can't tell who is on the other side of the screen. There are parental controls in place for this sort of thing. If the parents don't use them, then where is the liability?
Laws and regulation hasn't stopped murder or robbery either.
These companies want to make 100's of millions/billions on MT/loot boxes?
Maybe they should invest in a reliable system to keep minors out.
I didn't say it was gambling I said it was gambling styled. Not everyone's a junkie either but yet things like marijuana are illegal. Reasoning... they call it a gateway drug.
Loot boxes are a gateway to gambling addiction. I'd bet a researcher would have an easy time with that one.
The only way to ensure reliable authentication is to have no remove internet anonymity and have a biometric ID associated with an online ID.
There is no easy, inexpensive, or most importantly non-intrusive solution to identity verification. The intent here should be to do no more harm than is being done. Why do we need intrusive regulation where no problem has been evidenced.
The only verifiable problem we've seen is that people don't want to feel forced to pay more for games to get the whole package. All this talk about gambling and drugs is irrelevant and specious until there are facts and data to support evidence of a problem. All these issues are hypothetical scare scenarios designed to prey upon our sense of survival.
The problem isn't that people don't like loot boxes or they're "bad". The problem is a lot of people don't mind living with them and will play and pay for the game. Therefore since the people who don't like it lost the argument and those nasty games still get made, they want to legislate their way "for the good of the children and those who are too stupid to agree with them".
All these companies need to do is look after their own business. Nobodie's asking them to police the internet.
As explained in their own ToS's... Their service is not a right.
you have to look at these types of situations in 2 ways
1) paying money for a hobby you enjoy.
vs
2) companies being predatory on there consumer base.
unfortunately in the case of the article above I don't think we have enough information. Seems like more of a case of number 1) to me.
although i will say slatoff's last statement is a bold lie.....you can absolutely influence a consumer to buy.....that's why companies spend huge sums on marketing.
Gambling is everywhere in most places now (still illegal in Hawaii...thankfully). Some people have a hard time limiting their gambling and this applies to online games as well. I would much rather play a subscription game than a game that slowly (or not) bankrupts you.
Comments
I agree with Viper. But also, no one is looking at the other side of the coin. Regardless of this kids problems or decisions and whether or not he's embellishing his story to get his 15 minutes of fame or if he really has a problem. He's only one example out of many others who really do have this problem. And the other side of this problem is that companies like EA don't care if they provide you with a solid entertainment experience or whether they destroy your life and family. They WILL attempt to exploit you. And it is deliberate.
Someone with a predisposed condition makes them weak to this preditory marketing. You can point a finger and say "Be stronger fool!" but it doesn't work that way. This is no different than any other bully preying on the helpless. And here we are defending it.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
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
----------------
Its not, hey we have a dlc but when you buy it there is a chance you wont get the dlc you want and get something else. What game exists where the dlc is RNG purchase and you may not end up with the dlc?
Cosmetic items.....offer both the rng loot box for those that want to gamble and offer each winnable item for direct purchase. Then everyone gets what they want. But instead companies go for RNG gambling only because it generates more money.
Kids drink underage, using the logic I see here they should be able to just go buy it at any age. After all, the parents are responsible right. Looks at all the drinking related deaths that happens every year.
Sadly humans don't always do what they should and others have to pick up the pieces. No one is isolated from the affects of gambling even though they think they are. Some of your taxes goes to fight addiction.
Your choice. Deal with it before the kid becomes an adult or let it be and don't complain when they raise your taxes to pay for the fall-out of addiction.
that said, the act of me pulling the level on a slot machine is fine, what is NOT fine is floating a car in front of my face, telling me how baddly I need that car, how cool it will make me, and how it very possible I can win that car by pulling the handle.
its the advertising that is the problem
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
These companies want to make 100's of millions/billions on MT/loot boxes?
Maybe they should invest in a reliable system to keep minors out.
I didn't say it was gambling I said it was gambling styled. Not everyone's a junkie either but yet things like marijuana are illegal. Reasoning... they call it a gateway drug.
Loot boxes are a gateway to gambling addiction. I'd bet a researcher would have an easy time with that one.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
we really should not be advocating regulating lootboxes. horrible idea.
we should just not be buying these fucking games in the first place
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
First of all, yes, I bet a company wants to make money. That's pretty much what they do. Why would they create systems that would restrict people from accessing their stores?
Secondly, the whole marijuana as a gateway drug is a lie like sitting too close to the TV or masturbation growing hairy palms. If you'd like, why not google why marijuana was outlawed in the first place and have a good laugh. I don't smoke it myself, but I have learned a lot about the history of it, and it's actually quite shocking.
Third, again, there is no proof to what you're saying. I'd be willing to bet that a research would NOT. Actually, there are a number of psychologists who HAVE stated that they aren't gambling. They do rely on similar psychology, but it's not gambling. Also, these types of psychology are used in a myriad of well-accepted products, so the risk of addiction is actually quite limited.
Remember that compulsive gambling is a mental disorder. It's not going to be triggered by loot boxes. If anything, loot boxes might help diagnose a problem gambler earlier.
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
----------------
PS: Is there anyone who thinks giving people this information related to true cost and odds would be a bad thing? If so Id be interested in hearing why...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
In my view its not Gambling itself that gets people into trouble its how its presented that is the problem
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Yeah, I would be in favor of odds. It ends up coming out anyway from YouTube and other sources, so why not?
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
----------------
Its how table top D&D was so I dont think its unreasonable request at all.
plus 'the kids' people are so concerned about would learn math
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
see a pattern?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
“If you put it in fundamental terms, it’s really the same thing,” said Kimberly Young, a licensed psychologist and founder of the Center for Internet Addiction. “It’s called gambling.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2017/11/18/how-a-star-wars-video-game-faced-charges-that-it-was-promoting-gambling/?utm_term=.25e582fc3b7b
It really doesn't matter what you or I believe. Everybody talking about this shit.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
As explained in their own ToS's... Their service is not a right.
Ever been Id'd for a case of beer?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
1) paying money for a hobby you enjoy.
vs
2) companies being predatory on there consumer base.
unfortunately in the case of the article above I don't think we have enough information. Seems like more of a case of number 1) to me.
although i will say slatoff's last statement is a bold lie.....you can absolutely influence a consumer to buy.....that's why companies spend huge sums on marketing.