what? like I said I (for the most part) am a person not bound by morals more so then most people you will meet. I am just making an observation as an outsider that its ironic for a person (not me) to consider themselves of high moral standard to be complaining about gambling in a video game that is 100% about killing.
again...as an outsider looking in that is what I see.
you are now suggesting that morality against violence is anecdotal? that my grandmother who went to church every week is anecdotal? that I do not have an understanding of the general moral system of those who consider themselves moralists? That looking at Gandi as a moral guidepost of what moralists think is anecdotal? really? that what jesus said and what people follow him on regarding their views on violence is.....anecdotal?
Did you really bring up religion as a good standard for morals? Anyone following one of the big three monotheistic religions will have to pick and choose very carefully to avoid all the justifications for violence, human sacrifice, slavery etc. These are texts that many people take literally as the word of god.
I view anyone who uses religious texts as their moral compass as far more dangerous than people who play violent video games for entertainment.
no ...
I meant exactly what I said.
what a people THINK and what they DO are two different things.
I dont think its out of line to suggest that most people who consider themselves moralists (regardless of if they actually are) are also against violence. poeple here are saying that is purely anecdotal
now, I agree with others about this getting derailed...lets get this thread back on track if we can
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
what? like I said I (for the most part) am a person not bound by morals more so then most people you will meet. I am just making an observation as an outsider that its ironic for a person (not me) to consider themselves of high moral standard to be complaining about gambling in a video game that is 100% about killing.
again...as an outsider looking in that is what I see.
you are now suggesting that morality against violence is anecdotal? that my grandmother who went to church every week is anecdotal? that I do not have an understanding of the general moral system of those who consider themselves moralists? That looking at Gandi as a moral guidepost of what moralists think is anecdotal? really? that what jesus said and what people follow him on regarding their views on violence is.....anecdotal?
Did you really bring up religion as a good standard for morals? Anyone following one of the big three monotheistic religions will have to pick and choose very carefully to avoid all the justifications for violence, human sacrifice, slavery etc. These are texts that many people take literally as the word of god.
I view anyone who uses religious texts as their moral compass as far more dangerous than people who play violent video games for entertainment.
no ...
I meant exactly what I said.
what a people THINK and what they DO are two different things.
I dont think its out of line to suggest that most people who consider themselves to be more are also against violence. poeple here are saying that is purely anecdotal
now, I agree...lets get this thread back on track if we can
No, most people think violence should be avoided when possible. Wanton and needless violence is immoral, which is why movies and video games, almost always, go out of their way to let the player know "hey, you're killing folks, but those folks would do worse if you didn't."
However, none of that has any real bearing on consumers not wanting to have their wallets targeted by predatory monetization practices.
what? like I said I (for the most part) am a person not bound by morals more so then most people you will meet. I am just making an observation as an outsider that its ironic for a person (not me) to consider themselves of high moral standard to be complaining about gambling in a video game that is 100% about killing.
again...as an outsider looking in that is what I see.
you are now suggesting that morality against violence is anecdotal? that my grandmother who went to church every week is anecdotal? that I do not have an understanding of the general moral system of those who consider themselves moralists? That looking at Gandi as a moral guidepost of what moralists think is anecdotal? really? that what jesus said and what people follow him on regarding their views on violence is.....anecdotal?
Did you really bring up religion as a good standard for morals? Anyone following one of the big three monotheistic religions will have to pick and choose very carefully to avoid all the justifications for violence, human sacrifice, slavery etc. These are texts that many people take literally as the word of god.
I view anyone who uses religious texts as their moral compass as far more dangerous than people who play violent video games for entertainment.
no ...
I meant exactly what I said.
what a people THINK and what they DO are two different things.
I dont think its out of line to suggest that most people who consider themselves to be more are also against violence. poeple here are saying that is purely anecdotal
now, I agree...lets get this thread back on track if we can
No, most people think violence should be avoided when possible. Wanton and needless violence is immoral, which is why movies and video games, almost always, go out of their way to let the player know "hey, you're killing folks, but those folks would do worse if you didn't."
However, none of that has any real bearing on consumers not wanting to have their wallets targeted by predatory monetization practices.
lets get the entire subject back on tract.
I understand your view and others, I dont agree, I have stated why, I have illustrated a painting as to what it might look like, lets move on.
This might help.
I do not consider Gambling to be a problem I DO however consider telling other people they do not have the choice to gamble is a problem. That said, I think HOW gambling is presented to others can be inspected and possibly regulated.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Regulation is almost never the answer to problems. If people want things to change they have to stop paying money for crap. Regulation always end up being shaped by big companies, because people are corrupt. The result is rules that hurt smaller businesses and upstarts, which then hurts the consumer.
as a side note I asked a non-gamer here at work if they found it ironic that there is a debate going on about gambling in a game where the game is 100% about killing and mostly played by young people....
they said yes
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
as a side note I asked a non-gamer here at work if they found it ironic that there is a debate going on about gambling in a game where the game is 100% about killing and mostly played by young people....
they said yes
In a side note, I asked a non-gamer here at work if he thought it was weird to roleplay as a monster-killing womanizer with white hair and scars all over his body... He said yes.
as a side note I asked a non-gamer here at work if they found it ironic that there is a debate going on about gambling in a game where the game is 100% about killing and mostly played by young people....
they said yes
In a side note, I asked a non-gamer here at work if he thought it was weird to roleplay as a monster-killing womanizer with white hair and scars all over his body... He said yes.
actually I got it up to two now, both response were interesting but I am sure its just odd chance, no way people think that way in the mean.
but yeah lets get back to Gambling and how we cant cure addiction by removing the addictive substance.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
as a side note I asked a non-gamer here at work if they found it ironic that there is a debate going on about gambling in a game where the game is 100% about killing and mostly played by young people....
they said yes
In a side note, I asked a non-gamer here at work if he thought it was weird to roleplay as a monster-killing womanizer with white hair and scars all over his body... He said yes.
actually I got it up to two now, both response were interesting but I am sure its just odd chance, no way people think that way in the mean.
but yeah lets get back to Gambling and how we cant cure addiction by removing the addictive substance.
Of course Sean. And I could probably get the words "Sean's a troll" outta my co-workers by priming their responses to post here how everyone "just knows," it wouldn't make it any more true.
as a side note I asked a non-gamer here at work if they found it ironic that there is a debate going on about gambling in a game where the game is 100% about killing and mostly played by young people....
they said yes
Tell your co-workers that they can make their own thread on mmorpg.com about violence and killing in video games if they like, if you read the OP this one is about gambling.
You keep derailing the discussion time and time again.
as a side note I asked a non-gamer here at work if they found it ironic that there is a debate going on about gambling in a game where the game is 100% about killing and mostly played by young people....
they said yes
Tell your co-workers that they can make their own thread on mmorpg.com about violence and killing in video games if they like, if you read the OP this one is about gambling.
You keep derailing the discussion time and time again.
agreed
so what is your view on gambling in video games?
my position is that addiction can not be cured by removing the thing that is addictive. it doesnt work that way, what is your view on that?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Yep, you are just too stupid to make decisions for yourself...and companies are too stupid too. What gives the politicians in government the omniscience to know better how a gaming business should be run ? Has not government consistently demonstrated their inability with ever increasing government debt ?
When a company fails they go out of business.They loose their ability to continue to fail. YOU DON"T PAY FOR THEIR FAILURE. When a government fails us,,,they just put their mistake on YOUR tab for you to repay in higher taxes.....and keep on failing.
Yep, you are just too stupid to make decisions for yourself...and companies are too stupid too. What gives the politicians in government the omniscience to know better how a gaming business should be run ? Has not government consistently demonstrated their inability with ever increasing government debt ?
When a company fails they go out of business.They loose their ability to continue to fail. YOU DON"T PAY FOR THEIR FAILURE. When a government fails us,,,they just put their mistake on YOUR tab for you to repay in higher taxes.....and keep on failing.
I dont think its so much about governments ability or not. I think its a question of freedom.
I should have the freedom to make horrible choices unless it directly affects other people. business should be allowed to failed, they should not be monitored to only be successful becasue that is a forumla that is nearly impossible to work with creativity.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I think it's in the best interest of game developers and gamers to have some form of regulation or at least more clarity regarding the monetization of games. I don't see how if benefits game developers to run the risk of situations like what happened to Star Wars Battlefront II arising for their games. It's fair to say there was massive outrage about the monetization of SW:BF2 and there are many other examples like the RMAH in Diablo III, pay-to-win in many MMORPGs etc.
Regarding lootboxes and gambling in games I personally think it preys on impulsive tendencies and gambling addiction some people are susceptible to. I know people who have spent a lot of money to get items via gambling in games, only to regret it later and question how they could be so wasteful of money. The purpose is to get more money from people than if they could buy the same items for a fixed price, it's easy to see why game devs/publishers want it in their games. I don't see how gambling is beneficial to gamers, anyone with at least a basic understanding of probability and gambling will see that it makes the average gamer pay more for their items. I think selling items in games for a fixed price would be a more honest way to make money. Making all your money from box price and/or a subscription is the most honest way to make money since all the costs of playing the game are very apparent when making the decision to buy it.
A balance will have to be found between being honest with your customers and making as much money as possible from games. If the industry cannot find a way to regulate itself or provide better clarity about their business models, to regain trust from gamers, then I do think it's time for the government to step in. If things continue like they have for some time now with ever more devious ways to make money from games then I predict we will see outrage and boycotting of games as a regular occurence, which shouldn't be in the interest of anyone.
I think it's in the best interest of game developers and gamers to have some form of regulation or at least more clarity regarding the monetization of games. I don't see how if benefits game developers to run the risk of situations like what happened to Star Wars Battlefront II arising for their games. It's fair to say there was massive outrage about the monetization of SW:BF2 and there are many other examples like the RMAH in Diablo III, pay-to-win in many MMORPGs etc.
Regarding lootboxes and gambling in games I personally think it preys on impulsive tendencies and gambling addiction some people are susceptible to. I know people who have spent a lot of money to get items via gambling in games, only to regret it later and question how they could be so wasteful of money. The purpose is to get more money from people than if they could buy the same items for a fixed price, it's easy to see why game devs/publishers want it in their games. I don't see how gambling is beneficial to gamers, anyone with at least a basic understanding of probability and gambling will see that it makes the average gamer pay more for their items. I think selling items in games for a fixed price would be a more honest way to make money. Making all your money from box price and/or a subscription is the most honest way to make money since all the costs of playing the game are very apparent when making the decision to buy it.
A balance will have to be found between being honest with your customers and making as much money as possible from games. If the industry cannot find a way to regulate itself or provide better clarity about their business models, to regain trust from gamers, then I do think it's time for the government to step in. If things continue like they have for some time now with ever more devious ways to make money from games then I predict we will see outrage and boycotting of games as a regular occurence, which shouldn't be in the interest of anyone.
regulations should not be put in place so that it 'benefits the developer'
the government should not be in the business of regulating good behavior or smart choices as a default. Only when its directly affecting others and not in the abstract.
I think that many people think that governments role is to do good for others, its actually not. In not in the business of making people or companies better people or companies, its not about regulating you so that you do the right thing like opening the door for someone. It should only be in place (in this context) to protect others from bad choices and that should be direct and measurable.
that said, i have no problem with full disclouse on gambling odd, I think that is a fine idea
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I think it's in the best interest of game developers and gamers to have some form of regulation or at least more clarity regarding the monetization of games. I don't see how if benefits game developers to run the risk of situations like what happened to Star Wars Battlefront II arising for their games. It's fair to say there was massive outrage about the monetization of SW:BF2 and there are many other examples like the RMAH in Diablo III, pay-to-win in many MMORPGs etc.
Regarding lootboxes and gambling in games I personally think it preys on impulsive tendencies and gambling addiction some people are susceptible to. I know people who have spent a lot of money to get items via gambling in games, only to regret it later and question how they could be so wasteful of money. The purpose is to get more money from people than if they could buy the same items for a fixed price, it's easy to see why game devs/publishers want it in their games. I don't see how gambling is beneficial to gamers, anyone with at least a basic understanding of probability and gambling will see that it makes the average gamer pay more for their items. I think selling items in games for a fixed price would be a more honest way to make money. Making all your money from box price and/or a subscription is the most honest way to make money since all the costs of playing the game are very apparent when making the decision to buy it.
A balance will have to be found between being honest with your customers and making as much money as possible from games. If the industry cannot find a way to regulate itself or provide better clarity about their business models, to regain trust from gamers, then I do think it's time for the government to step in. If things continue like they have for some time now with ever more devious ways to make money from games then I predict we will see outrage and boycotting of games as a regular occurence, which shouldn't be in the interest of anyone.
regulations should not be put in place so that it 'benefits the developer'
the government should not be in the business of regulating good behavior or smart choices as a default. Only when its directly affecting others and not in the abstract.
I think that many people think that governments role is to do good for others, its actually not. In not in the business of making people or companies better people or companies, its not about regulating you so that you do the right thing like opening the door for someone. It should only be in place (in this context) to protect others from bad choices and that should be direct and measurable.
that said, i have no problem with full disclouse on gambling odd, I think that is a fine idea
Actually, no, government, in it's most basic form, is about the social contract: you give up some rights to enjoy some securities.
What those securities and rights are is up for interpretation and can vary wildly between groups of people. There is no standard for the role of government in the lives of it's citizens, save for the role the citizens willingly cede to it (in this instance, via legislation).
I think it's in the best interest of game developers and gamers to have some form of regulation or at least more clarity regarding the monetization of games. I don't see how if benefits game developers to run the risk of situations like what happened to Star Wars Battlefront II arising for their games. It's fair to say there was massive outrage about the monetization of SW:BF2 and there are many other examples like the RMAH in Diablo III, pay-to-win in many MMORPGs etc.
Regarding lootboxes and gambling in games I personally think it preys on impulsive tendencies and gambling addiction some people are susceptible to. I know people who have spent a lot of money to get items via gambling in games, only to regret it later and question how they could be so wasteful of money. The purpose is to get more money from people than if they could buy the same items for a fixed price, it's easy to see why game devs/publishers want it in their games. I don't see how gambling is beneficial to gamers, anyone with at least a basic understanding of probability and gambling will see that it makes the average gamer pay more for their items. I think selling items in games for a fixed price would be a more honest way to make money. Making all your money from box price and/or a subscription is the most honest way to make money since all the costs of playing the game are very apparent when making the decision to buy it.
A balance will have to be found between being honest with your customers and making as much money as possible from games. If the industry cannot find a way to regulate itself or provide better clarity about their business models, to regain trust from gamers, then I do think it's time for the government to step in. If things continue like they have for some time now with ever more devious ways to make money from games then I predict we will see outrage and boycotting of games as a regular occurence, which shouldn't be in the interest of anyone.
regulations should not be put in place so that it 'benefits the developer'
the government should not be in the business of regulating good behavior or smart choices as a default. Only when its directly affecting others and not in the abstract.
I think that many people think that governments role is to do good for others, its actually not. In not in the business of making people or companies better people or companies, its not about regulating you so that you do the right thing like opening the door for someone. It should only be in place (in this context) to protect others from bad choices and that should be direct and measurable.
that said, i have no problem with full disclouse on gambling odd, I think that is a fine idea
Actually, no, government, in it's most basic form, is about the social contract: you give up some rights to enjoy some securities.
What those securities and rights are is up for interpretation and can vary wildly between groups of people. There is no standard for the role of government in the lives of it's citizens, save for the role the citizens willingly cede to it (in this instance, via legislation).
and what did I say exactly?
I said that goverment is not in the business of making people or companies better. They are not in the business of regulating 'good' choices. They do however involve in protection when it involves other people not making the choice in general. I think I got all I said covered there
how does that conflict with what you are saying?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What you said was anecdotal, meaning that you are basing your opinion off of your own experiences, rather than by any empirical evidence but trying to make a broader point beyond that it won't hold up. My experience is opposite of you. Everyone I know looks at porn, and the people I know don't think pornography is immoral.
Irony would entail that something happens opposite of what was expected, with an amusing outcome. I am trying to point out that your getting caught in a logical fallacy by correlating fake violence = real gambling = pornography when they are not on the same levels. Companies are exploiting people with items that you must buy with real money, loot boxes have a tangible effect on people, and trying to compare the morality of a person who is trying to have fun, versus a company that is maliciously exploiting that person for real money is where morality comes into play for me.
These companies know exactly what they are doing, and they are trying to push people as far as they can without backlash, and it creates an unrealistic cycle of more repetition, and less innovation, and all they see are profits.
so you are suggesting one can not say 'most relgious people believe murder is wrong' because that would be anecdotal?
really?
Well...
How many people in history do you suppose have been killed/murdered in the name of God?
I think it's in the best interest of game developers and gamers to have some form of regulation or at least more clarity regarding the monetization of games. I don't see how if benefits game developers to run the risk of situations like what happened to Star Wars Battlefront II arising for their games. It's fair to say there was massive outrage about the monetization of SW:BF2 and there are many other examples like the RMAH in Diablo III, pay-to-win in many MMORPGs etc.
Regarding lootboxes and gambling in games I personally think it preys on impulsive tendencies and gambling addiction some people are susceptible to. I know people who have spent a lot of money to get items via gambling in games, only to regret it later and question how they could be so wasteful of money. The purpose is to get more money from people than if they could buy the same items for a fixed price, it's easy to see why game devs/publishers want it in their games. I don't see how gambling is beneficial to gamers, anyone with at least a basic understanding of probability and gambling will see that it makes the average gamer pay more for their items. I think selling items in games for a fixed price would be a more honest way to make money. Making all your money from box price and/or a subscription is the most honest way to make money since all the costs of playing the game are very apparent when making the decision to buy it.
A balance will have to be found between being honest with your customers and making as much money as possible from games. If the industry cannot find a way to regulate itself or provide better clarity about their business models, to regain trust from gamers, then I do think it's time for the government to step in. If things continue like they have for some time now with ever more devious ways to make money from games then I predict we will see outrage and boycotting of games as a regular occurence, which shouldn't be in the interest of anyone.
regulations should not be put in place so that it 'benefits the developer'
the government should not be in the business of regulating good behavior or smart choices as a default. Only when its directly affecting others and not in the abstract.
I think that many people think that governments role is to do good for others, its actually not. In not in the business of making people or companies better people or companies, its not about regulating you so that you do the right thing like opening the door for someone. It should only be in place (in this context) to protect others from bad choices and that should be direct and measurable.
that said, i have no problem with full disclouse on gambling odd, I think that is a fine idea
Actually, no, government, in it's most basic form, is about the social contract: you give up some rights to enjoy some securities.
What those securities and rights are is up for interpretation and can vary wildly between groups of people. There is no standard for the role of government in the lives of it's citizens, save for the role the citizens willingly cede to it (in this instance, via legislation).
and what did I say exactly?
I said that goverment is not in the business of making people or companies better. They are not in the business of regulating 'good' choices. They do however involve in protection when it involves other people not making the choice in general. I think I got all I said covered there
how does that conflict with what you are saying?
Because nothing about that social contract precludes the government assisting citizens in making good choices should the people believe it's in their best interests. Why do you think alcohol and tobacco is taxed so heavily?
we had moved on from the violence bit. I think its absurd to 'protect people from the evils of gambling' when the game in question is 100% about killing and I also very frankly do not believe people when they say they do not see the irony, regardless of their view on the subject itself.
So I have let that go.
Now we are talking about addiction...ready....?
'video games are addictive'
that is the response that could happen if you start trying to protect people from addictive 'substances' in video games
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
we had moved on from the violence bit. I think its absurd to 'protect people from the evils of gambling' when the game in question is 100% about killing and I also very frankly do not believe people when they say they do not see the irony, regardless of their view on the subject itself.
So I have let that go.
Now we are talking about addiction...ready....?
'video games are addictive'
that is the response that could happen if you start trying to protect people from addictive 'substances' in video games
we had moved on from the violence bit. I think its absurd to 'protect people from the evils of gambling' when the game in question is 100% about killing and I also very frankly do not believe people when they say they do not see the irony, regardless of their view on the subject itself.
So I have let that go.
Now we are talking about addiction...ready....?
'video games are addictive'
that is the response that could happen if you start trying to protect people from addictive 'substances' in video games
Pretending something isn't happening isn't the same as that thing not happening, that younger players are getting involved with gambling at an age where they are easily influenced, not good, the only thing that needs to happen, is for existing laws to be enacted without exception, if a game contains gambling mechanics, which SW:BF2 and Destiny 2 both do without question, then they should be forced to adhere to the same laws as other online casinos/bingo websites etc. And that is that there should be an adult rating on those games, and playing them means you have to verify your age in a way that is provable, just as it is done with online gambling, it really is that simple, the only reason this is a problem for game publishers etc. is that they want to sell these games to minors and they don't have a problem with exploiting the vulnerable through gambling, any question of whether that is true or not should be amply verified just from EA's recent ####### copywrite applications. And no, video games aren't addictive, unless you put gambling into them to make it so, or was that too obvious a conclusion?
we had moved on from the violence bit. I think its absurd to 'protect people from the evils of gambling' when the game in question is 100% about killing and I also very frankly do not believe people when they say they do not see the irony, regardless of their view on the subject itself.
So I have let that go.
Now we are talking about addiction...ready....?
'video games are addictive'
that is the response that could happen if you start trying to protect people from addictive 'substances' in video games
Pretending something isn't happening isn't the same as that thing not happening, that younger players are getting involved with gambling at an age where they are easily influenced, not good, the only thing that needs to happen, is for existing laws to be enacted without exception, if a game contains gambling mechanics, which SW:BF2 and Destiny 2 both do without question, then they should be forced to adhere to the same laws as other online casinos/bingo websites etc. And that is that there should be an adult rating on those games, and playing them means you have to verify your age in a way that is provable, just as it is done with online gambling, it really is that simple, the only reason this is a problem for game publishers etc. is that they want to sell these games to minors and they don't have a problem with exploiting the vulnerable through gambling, any question of whether that is true or not should be amply verified just from EA's recent ####### copywrite applications. And no, video games aren't addictive, unless you put gambling into them to make it so, or was that too obvious a conclusion?
my statement has nothing to do with 'pretending its not happening.
1. The government should not be in the business of being a parent for every child and every adult. They should not be in the business of making sure kids are protected from the cold by making it a legal requirement to bundle up. it should not be a legal requirement to make an A in class. Protecting childern from a legal standpoint has to be limited and serious.
2. Childern are without any question whatsoever at a higher risk of being addicted to video games then they are to gambling. So we should regulate the hours spent on video games?
3. hiding the addictive substances NEVER works for curing addiction. Because some people have addictive personalities that need to be cured, NOT just contained. Those people will become addicted to ANYTHING that gives them a high level of dopamine which means EVERYTHING that is enjoyable.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Face it online games should be controlled, regulated, and you should be force to buy a license from the government to play that requires you to go into gaming detox for 2 weeks every year where they pump you with experimental drugs.
Comments
I meant exactly what I said.
what a people THINK and what they DO are two different things.
I dont think its out of line to suggest that most people who consider themselves moralists (regardless of if they actually are) are also against violence.
poeple here are saying that is purely anecdotal
now, I agree with others about this getting derailed...lets get this thread back on track if we can
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
However, none of that has any real bearing on consumers not wanting to have their wallets targeted by predatory monetization practices.
I understand your view and others, I dont agree, I have stated why, I have illustrated a painting as to what it might look like, lets move on.
This might help.
I do not consider Gambling to be a problem I DO however consider telling other people they do not have the choice to gamble is a problem.
That said, I think HOW gambling is presented to others can be inspected and possibly regulated.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Just say no to regulation.
how do you CURE addiction? you dont cure addiction by removing that which is addictive no matter what it is.
Otherwise you re making alcohol, tobacco, coffee, binge eating, late night TV illegal
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
they said yes
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
but yeah lets get back to Gambling and how we cant cure addiction by removing the addictive substance.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You keep derailing the discussion time and time again.
so what is your view on gambling in video games?
my position is that addiction can not be cured by removing the thing that is addictive. it doesnt work that way, what is your view on that?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
When a company fails they go out of business.They loose their ability to continue to fail. YOU DON"T PAY FOR THEIR FAILURE. When a government fails us,,,they just put their mistake on YOUR tab for you to repay in higher taxes.....and keep on failing.
I should have the freedom to make horrible choices unless it directly affects other people. business should be allowed to failed, they should not be monitored to only be successful becasue that is a forumla that is nearly impossible to work with creativity.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Regarding lootboxes and gambling in games I personally think it preys on impulsive tendencies and gambling addiction some people are susceptible to. I know people who have spent a lot of money to get items via gambling in games, only to regret it later and question how they could be so wasteful of money. The purpose is to get more money from people than if they could buy the same items for a fixed price, it's easy to see why game devs/publishers want it in their games. I don't see how gambling is beneficial to gamers, anyone with at least a basic understanding of probability and gambling will see that it makes the average gamer pay more for their items. I think selling items in games for a fixed price would be a more honest way to make money. Making all your money from box price and/or a subscription is the most honest way to make money since all the costs of playing the game are very apparent when making the decision to buy it.
A balance will have to be found between being honest with your customers and making as much money as possible from games. If the industry cannot find a way to regulate itself or provide better clarity about their business models, to regain trust from gamers, then I do think it's time for the government to step in. If things continue like they have for some time now with ever more devious ways to make money from games then I predict we will see outrage and boycotting of games as a regular occurence, which shouldn't be in the interest of anyone.
the government should not be in the business of regulating good behavior or smart choices as a default. Only when its directly affecting others and not in the abstract.
I think that many people think that governments role is to do good for others, its actually not. In not in the business of making people or companies better people or companies, its not about regulating you so that you do the right thing like opening the door for someone. It should only be in place (in this context) to protect others from bad choices and that should be direct and measurable.
that said, i have no problem with full disclouse on gambling odd, I think that is a fine idea
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What those securities and rights are is up for interpretation and can vary wildly between groups of people. There is no standard for the role of government in the lives of it's citizens, save for the role the citizens willingly cede to it (in this instance, via legislation).
I said that goverment is not in the business of making people or companies better. They are not in the business of regulating 'good' choices. They do however involve in protection when it involves other people not making the choice in general.
I think I got all I said covered there
how does that conflict with what you are saying?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
How many people in history do you suppose have been killed/murdered in the name of God?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
So I have let that go.
Now we are talking about addiction...ready....?
'video games are addictive'
that is the response that could happen if you start trying to protect people from addictive 'substances' in video games
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
There are many things that are addictive in this world. The question is.... do we let companies unfairly exploit those addictions.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
And no, video games aren't addictive, unless you put gambling into them to make it so, or was that too obvious a conclusion?
1. The government should not be in the business of being a parent for every child and every adult. They should not be in the business of making sure kids are protected from the cold by making it a legal requirement to bundle up. it should not be a legal requirement to make an A in class. Protecting childern from a legal standpoint has to be limited and serious.
2. Childern are without any question whatsoever at a higher risk of being addicted to video games then they are to gambling. So we should regulate the hours spent on video games?
3. hiding the addictive substances NEVER works for curing addiction. Because some people have addictive personalities that need to be cured, NOT just contained. Those people will become addicted to ANYTHING that gives them a high level of dopamine which means EVERYTHING that is enjoyable.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me