Lootboxes are gambling (Official Statement)

Ungood

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

craftseeker said:

Ungood said:

Loot boxes are gambling much in the same way rolling the dice in monopoly is gambling. 

The only variable, is you are paying to roll.

Nope, false analogy. Did you read the ruling from the Belgian government? Loot boxes are gambling, just like slot machines are gambling.

I's disagree, only because you can't actually lose with a Loot Box, you are guaranteed to get something, much in the same way those random vending machine work, where kids put quarters in and get out cheap toys. They may not get what they want, but they will always get something.

Well you're definitely toeing the ESRB party line.

That line of thinking has always made me wonder if a casino can get around the gambling regulations by always giving you something, You think that'd fly?

Well, think people confuse games of chance with gambling. 

Let me give you another example, Did you ever watch the Price is Right? That show was riddled full of games of chance and luck, but none of it was gambling.

Same holds true for many "game shows", like Wheel of Fortune, or Press Your Luck.. or many others.. 

Just like when kids put 50 cents into a fake tattoo vending machines or the ones with just plastic junk jewelry, they are unsure what they will get, but they will always get something.

That is how Lootboxes work.

However, with something like a casino, you are dealing with direct money betting, which is not anything like a Lootbox, that is a whole other type of system.

Ungood

MadFrenchie said:

DMKano said:

MadFrenchie said:

DMKano said:

Dimmizer said:

I hate how complicated people make it.. like all these loop holes or laws and how things are worded..


Keep it simple I say..

gam·ble

ˈɡambəl/

verb

1. 1.
   play games of chance for money; bet.
2. 2.
   take risky action in the hope of a desired result.
   
   
   
   IE: You pay money for credits and then spend said credits or diamonds or w/e they call it in said game to buy creates which have a % chance to give you what you want.. plain and simple. There shouldn't be any loop holes or something about this the definition is clear I mean if companies and casinos are gonna try and get around this then why do we have a definition at all?
   
   Companies are changing the meaning to fit their narrative which isn't how the world works but sadly ya know.. corruption and all.. people want their $.
   

It's not simple because it's not the same when it comes to virtual goods that are not tradable and bound to your character (which some lootboxes have)

Real gambling - the winnings can always be exchanged for real money that can be used to buy whatever you want.

Lootboxes - in case character bound items - can't be used for shit in real world.

Also the fact that looboxes always give you something - real gambling only gives you something if you win (most of the time you simply lose money) - again huge difference.

Lootboxes are RNG buying - that's really what it is - it's different than gambling, now laws can be passed to include RNG buying as gambling - but this would have far reaching effects way beyond lootboxes in videogames.

If we're getting super technical, again, you're not winning anything in a loot box in the traditional sense of the word.  You're unlocking content for software you have limited and temporary rights to.  Different, indeed.

If lootboxes are gambling - so is this - card booster packs:



Yep.

And a ton of different things that are "RNG buying".

You own those cards.  Can the manufacturers force you to forfeit them at their whim?

Sorta, MtG tournaments have rules of what cards are allowed to used, and while no one could stop you from doing your own home brew rules, at home, if you wanted to play in any sponsored game, you needed to follow those rules, and they could also ban you from playing at sponsored games, no matter how many cards you bought.

Slapshot1188

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

craftseeker said:

Ungood said:

Loot boxes are gambling much in the same way rolling the dice in monopoly is gambling. 

The only variable, is you are paying to roll.

Nope, false analogy. Did you read the ruling from the Belgian government? Loot boxes are gambling, just like slot machines are gambling.

I's disagree, only because you can't actually lose with a Loot Box, you are guaranteed to get something, much in the same way those random vending machine work, where kids put quarters in and get out cheap toys. They may not get what they want, but they will always get something.

Well you're definitely toeing the ESRB party line.

That line of thinking has always made me wonder if a casino can get around the gambling regulations by always giving you something, You think that'd fly?

Well, think people confuse games of chance with gambling. 

Let me give you another example, Did you ever watch the Price is Right? That show was riddled full of games of chance and luck, but none of it was gambling.

Same holds true for many "game shows", like Wheel of Fortune, or Press Your Luck.. or many others.. 

Just like when kids put 50 cents into a fake tattoo vending machines or the ones with just plastic junk jewelry, they are unsure what they will get, but they will always get something.

That is how Lootboxes work.

However, with something like a casino, you are dealing with direct money betting, which is not anything like a Lootbox, that is a whole other type of system.

You are mistaken.  By your definition a casino could simply have every slot machine drop X "prize tickets" every spin (in addition to the chance to win money).  Those tickets could then be used to purchase stuffed animals or toys like you find at Chuck-e-Cheese.   Since you get something every spin, by your definition the casino could say that you are purchasing the tickets and the chance to win money is just a bonus.

Nobody would buy that idea.  Everyone would see it as a sham.  

Scot

This again? Gambling in gaming is bad, why do posters excuse it? Its place in wider society does not make it acceptable, previous occasions that kids have been exposed to it do not make it a good thing.

Quizzical

Ungood said:

craftseeker said:

Ungood said:

Loot boxes are gambling much in the same way rolling the dice in monopoly is gambling. 

The only variable, is you are paying to roll.

Nope, false analogy. Did you read the ruling from the Belgian government? Loot boxes are gambling, just like slot machines are gambling.

I's disagree, only because you can't actually lose with a Loot Box, you are guaranteed to get something, much in the same way those random vending machine work, where kids put quarters in and get out cheap toys. They may not get what they want, but they will always get something.

So let me make sure I have this straight.  If you pay $1 to have a 50% chance of winning $2 and a 50% chance of nothing, that's gambling.  But if you pay $2 to have a 50% chance of winning $3 and a 50% chance of winning $1, then that's not gambling, because in the latter you always win something.  Is that basically what you're arguing?

MadFrenchie

Ungood said:

MadFrenchie said:

DMKano said:

MadFrenchie said:

DMKano said:

Dimmizer said:

I hate how complicated people make it.. like all these loop holes or laws and how things are worded..


Keep it simple I say..

gam·ble

ˈɡambəl/

verb

1. 1.
   play games of chance for money; bet.
2. 2.
   take risky action in the hope of a desired result.
   
   
   
   IE: You pay money for credits and then spend said credits or diamonds or w/e they call it in said game to buy creates which have a % chance to give you what you want.. plain and simple. There shouldn't be any loop holes or something about this the definition is clear I mean if companies and casinos are gonna try and get around this then why do we have a definition at all?
   
   Companies are changing the meaning to fit their narrative which isn't how the world works but sadly ya know.. corruption and all.. people want their $.
   

It's not simple because it's not the same when it comes to virtual goods that are not tradable and bound to your character (which some lootboxes have)

Real gambling - the winnings can always be exchanged for real money that can be used to buy whatever you want.

Lootboxes - in case character bound items - can't be used for shit in real world.

Also the fact that looboxes always give you something - real gambling only gives you something if you win (most of the time you simply lose money) - again huge difference.

Lootboxes are RNG buying - that's really what it is - it's different than gambling, now laws can be passed to include RNG buying as gambling - but this would have far reaching effects way beyond lootboxes in videogames.

If we're getting super technical, again, you're not winning anything in a loot box in the traditional sense of the word.  You're unlocking content for software you have limited and temporary rights to.  Different, indeed.

If lootboxes are gambling - so is this - card booster packs:



Yep.

And a ton of different things that are "RNG buying".

You own those cards.  Can the manufacturers force you to forfeit them at their whim?

Sorta, MtG tournaments have rules of what cards are allowed to used, and while no one could stop you from doing your own home brew rules, at home, if you wanted to play in any sponsored game, you needed to follow those rules, and they could also ban you from playing at sponsored games, no matter how many cards you bought.

Absolutely.  Which is yet, somehow, still a step closer to fair for the consumer than loot boxes systems in games.

And again, they cannot force you to forfeit cards you have purchased because you actually do own those cards.  They also have limited control over the value, because the cards can hold collectible value independent of the game itself.  A card that isn't very powerful but, say, looked really cool and had great flavor text and was fairly rare due to the card's age, for example, holds a value that WotC can't destroy.  Even running a 2nd series of that card would likely only make the 1st series that much more valuable.

Iselin

Quizzical said:

Ungood said:

craftseeker said:

Ungood said:

Loot boxes are gambling much in the same way rolling the dice in monopoly is gambling. 

The only variable, is you are paying to roll.

Nope, false analogy. Did you read the ruling from the Belgian government? Loot boxes are gambling, just like slot machines are gambling.

I's disagree, only because you can't actually lose with a Loot Box, you are guaranteed to get something, much in the same way those random vending machine work, where kids put quarters in and get out cheap toys. They may not get what they want, but they will always get something.

So let me make sure I have this straight.  If you pay $1 to have a 50% chance of winning $2 and a 50% chance of nothing, that's gambling.  But if you pay $2 to have a 50% chance of winning $3 and a 50% chance of winning $1, then that's not gambling, because in the latter you always win something.  Is that basically what you're arguing?

Yup. That is exactly where that leads. It amazes me that he and Kano and others keep bringing that up as arguments for loot crates not being gambling in thread after thread.

There are intelligent conversations to be had about things such as real world monetary value, the transient worth of in game items that can disappear on a developer's whim, or whether a purely digital item worth with no intersection with the real world has a societal value in 2018 and beyond that makes it a valuable item for the purposes of the application of gambling regulations if they're obtained by spending cash for a chance to get one.

But "you always win something" isn't one of those conversations.

Eldurian

In other news, Belgium still has a population of less than 12 million people and is still in no position to affect the policies of multinational projects such as online game by saying it's illegal.

People will fix their games to hit Belgium's market or they won't try to market their games in Belgium but I can guarantee you one thing that isn't happening in the headquarters of these big game developers:

"OH NO! BELGIUM SAYS WHAT WE ARE DOING IS ILLEGAL! WE NEED TO OVERHAUL OUR BUSINESS MODEL TO APEASE BELGIUM!"

Iselin

Eldurian said:

In other news, Belgium still has a population of less than 12 million people and is still in no position to affect the policies of multinational projects such as online game by saying it's illegal.

People will fix their games to hit Belgium's market or they won't try to market their games in Belgium but I can guarantee you one thing that isn't happening in the headquarters of these big game developers:

"OH NO! BELGIUM SAYS WHAT WE ARE DOING IS ILLEGAL! WE NEED TO OVERHAUL OUR BUSINESS MODEL TO APEASE BELGIUM!"

You're totally missing why this is significant: before Belgium and the Netherlands doing their thing, no government had ever come out against this thing that all other governments ignore.

Now there are 2 who just happen to mirror the growing backlash against loot boxes from the people that play the games.

Neither you nor I have any idea where this will eventually lead but if you don't acknowledge that there is an anti loot box trend happening world wide you're not looking.

Eldurian

It's a trend but it's a trend I personally feel a level of disgust for. I have never personally purchased a loot box, ever. If I spend my money on a game I want something guaranteed not a chance for a reward.

And games have done an exceptionally good job of allowing me to do that for the most part. It's like in ArcheAge. Everything in the lootboxes came in a wrapped form. I would just buy the items I wanted with in-game gold and skip the RNG. I did a lot of bypassing RNG by just paying upfront for the finished product in that game.

Some people like the rush. Some people enjoy the gambling aspect. Yeah it feeds into unhealthy addictions sometimes, but newsflash, they aren't me. I don't get to tell other people what they can and can't do just because I think it's a bad decision. They can gamble if they want.

So long as it isn't infringing on my rights, it isn't my business. 

I personally hope these companies pull their games from Belgium and Netherlands and offer no substitution. Let them face the fury of their own citizens when the state is telling them they can't play the games they want to play. See how much they love their government overreach then.

Ungood

Slapshot1188 said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

craftseeker said:

Ungood said:

Loot boxes are gambling much in the same way rolling the dice in monopoly is gambling. 

The only variable, is you are paying to roll.

Nope, false analogy. Did you read the ruling from the Belgian government? Loot boxes are gambling, just like slot machines are gambling.

I's disagree, only because you can't actually lose with a Loot Box, you are guaranteed to get something, much in the same way those random vending machine work, where kids put quarters in and get out cheap toys. They may not get what they want, but they will always get something.

Well you're definitely toeing the ESRB party line.

That line of thinking has always made me wonder if a casino can get around the gambling regulations by always giving you something, You think that'd fly?

Well, think people confuse games of chance with gambling. 

Let me give you another example, Did you ever watch the Price is Right? That show was riddled full of games of chance and luck, but none of it was gambling.

Same holds true for many "game shows", like Wheel of Fortune, or Press Your Luck.. or many others.. 

Just like when kids put 50 cents into a fake tattoo vending machines or the ones with just plastic junk jewelry, they are unsure what they will get, but they will always get something.

That is how Lootboxes work.

However, with something like a casino, you are dealing with direct money betting, which is not anything like a Lootbox, that is a whole other type of system.

You are mistaken.  By your definition a casino could simply have every slot machine drop X "prize tickets" every spin (in addition to the chance to win money).  Those tickets could then be used to purchase stuffed animals or toys like you find at Chuck-e-Cheese.   Since you get something every spin, by your definition the casino could say that you are purchasing the tickets and the chance to win money is just a bonus.

Nobody would buy that idea.  Everyone would see it as a sham.  

Nope... the second you put winning cash money in the equation the rules change. Just the way it is.

See, a loortbox, has zero real world value, as all parts of a game have zero real-world value (which is all part of the EULA and TOS, that we have discussed at length) as such, you are buying something worth exactly.. nothing.. no matter what you get.

So, you can't call it gambling as.. well.. technically, you would lose.. every single time.. but what you are doing is playing a game of chance, which is not really gambling, much in the same way rolling the dice on a monopoly board is a gamble... but it not gambling.

Iselin

Eldurian said:

It's a trend but it's a trend I personally feel a level of disgust for. I have never personally purchased a loot box, ever. If I spend my money on a game I want something guaranteed not a chance for a reward.

And games have done an exceptionally good job of allowing me to do that for the most part. It's like in ArcheAge. Everything in the lootboxes came in a wrapped form. I would just buy the items I wanted with in-game gold and skip the RNG. I did a lot of bypassing RNG by just paying upfront for the finished product in that game.

Some people like the rush. Some people enjoy the gambling aspect. Yeah it feeds into unhealthy addictions sometimes, but newsflash, they aren't me. I don't get to tell other people what they can and can't do just because I think it's a bad decision. They can gamble if they want.

So long as it isn't infringing on my rights, it isn't my business. 

I personally hope these companies pull their games from Belgium and Netherlands and offer no substitution. Let them face the fury of their own citizens when the state is telling them they can't play the games they want to play. See how much they love their government overreach then.

Again, you're not looking hard enough. It impacts everyone because things - often the best things - are being put in loot boxes and can't be gotten any other way.

You can shrug that off and say "Well, it's not things I want anyway"... give it time.

Ungood

Eldurian said:

In other news, Belgium still has a population of less than 12 million people and is still in no position to affect the policies of multinational projects such as online game by saying it's illegal.

People will fix their games to hit Belgium's market or they won't try to market their games in Belgium but I can guarantee you one thing that isn't happening in the headquarters of these big game developers:

"OH NO! BELGIUM SAYS WHAT WE ARE DOING IS ILLEGAL! WE NEED TO OVERHAUL OUR BUSINESS MODEL TO APEASE BELGIUM!"

This is most likely true, but, America is also looking into Lootboxes, and while not willing to classify them as gambling or put them under the Federal GHambling Commission, what they are currently focusing on, is that Lootboxes and other RNG like things in Videogames can be as addicting as gambling, and.. are looking into all the problems that causes.. on top of general video game addiction, which is also another issue.

Added: This might result in limits being put on how many lootboxes you can buy, or if the game company becomes responsible to notify someone if they are being excessive and to seek help.. etc. etc. etc.. much like how Casino's are required to have the "Gambling Addiction Hotline" and even intervene if they think someone is addicted to gambling and cut them off, while this won't stop them from gambling, it is the same kind of liability that bars have to cut someone off if they have drank too much.

Eldurian

Iselin said:

Eldurian said:

It's a trend but it's a trend I personally feel a level of disgust for. I have never personally purchased a loot box, ever. If I spend my money on a game I want something guaranteed not a chance for a reward.

And games have done an exceptionally good job of allowing me to do that for the most part. It's like in ArcheAge. Everything in the lootboxes came in a wrapped form. I would just buy the items I wanted with in-game gold and skip the RNG. I did a lot of bypassing RNG by just paying upfront for the finished product in that game.

Some people like the rush. Some people enjoy the gambling aspect. Yeah it feeds into unhealthy addictions sometimes, but newsflash, they aren't me. I don't get to tell other people what they can and can't do just because I think it's a bad decision. They can gamble if they want.

So long as it isn't infringing on my rights, it isn't my business. 

I personally hope these companies pull their games from Belgium and Netherlands and offer no substitution. Let them face the fury of their own citizens when the state is telling them they can't play the games they want to play. See how much they love their government overreach then.

Again, you're not looking hard enough. It impacts everyone because things - often the best things - are being put in loot boxes and can't be gotten any other way.

You can shrug that off and say "Well, it's not things I want anyway"... give it time.

Except that's an absolutely false statement for every game I've played with loot boxes. I can't name a single game I've played in which items that are lootboot exclusive aren't tradable. If they are tradable then buying them directly after someone else does the gambling is always in option.

MadFrenchie

Eldurian said:

Iselin said:

Eldurian said:

It's a trend but it's a trend I personally feel a level of disgust for. I have never personally purchased a loot box, ever. If I spend my money on a game I want something guaranteed not a chance for a reward.

And games have done an exceptionally good job of allowing me to do that for the most part. It's like in ArcheAge. Everything in the lootboxes came in a wrapped form. I would just buy the items I wanted with in-game gold and skip the RNG. I did a lot of bypassing RNG by just paying upfront for the finished product in that game.

Some people like the rush. Some people enjoy the gambling aspect. Yeah it feeds into unhealthy addictions sometimes, but newsflash, they aren't me. I don't get to tell other people what they can and can't do just because I think it's a bad decision. They can gamble if they want.

So long as it isn't infringing on my rights, it isn't my business. 

I personally hope these companies pull their games from Belgium and Netherlands and offer no substitution. Let them face the fury of their own citizens when the state is telling them they can't play the games they want to play. See how much they love their government overreach then.

Again, you're not looking hard enough. It impacts everyone because things - often the best things - are being put in loot boxes and can't be gotten any other way.

You can shrug that off and say "Well, it's not things I want anyway"... give it time.

Except that's an absolutely false statement for every game I've played with loot boxes. I can't name a single game I've played in which items that are lootboot exclusive aren't tradable. If they are tradable then buying them directly after someone else does the gambling is always in option.

None of that means it does not exist.  It does.

Eldurian

It certainly can't be a very popular model if I've never encountered it.

Also it's a model that at least the Netherlands law doesn't even apply to. They are specifically targeting companies that allow the resale of lootbox goods for cash such as PUBG.

Do you know that that means? You can just buy the items you want with cash rather than getting them through lootboxes. These laws force people back into using the models you say you don't want.

It's an anti-gambling law which just like anti-drug laws, anti-prostitution laws etc. are laws prohibiting victimless crimes. AKA telling other people how to live their lives because apparently sorting out their own problems and minding their own damn business isn't good enough for people.

We need to pay the government to stop people from doing things that offend us I guess.

MadFrenchie

Eldurian said:

It certainly can't be a very popular model if I've never encountered it.

Also it's a model that at least the Netherlands law doesn't even apply to. They are specifically targeting companies that allow the resale of lootbox goods for cash such as PUBG.

Do you know that that means? You can just but the items you want with cash rather than getting them through lootboxes.

Multi-level marketing schemes aren't that relatively popular either, but are still an issue when it occurs.

Eldurian

I guess just not playing games that use a monetization model that you don't agree with doesn't work? Personally I would never play a game that requires me to buy lootboxes to get things I want either, and that's stopped me from playing games a grand total of 0 times. 

Companies are under no obligation to make the products you want, and the government is not the tool to force them to make things the way you want them made, but believe it or not capitalism has actually been doing a great job here. That's why it's not an issue for anyone who isn't specifically looking for outlier cases to be mad about. 

Because consumers don't want to be forced to use lootboxes and the market has responded by almost never doing that.

Slapshot1188

Eldurian said:

I guess just not playing games that use a monetization model that you don't agree with doesn't work? Personally I would never play a game that requires me to buy lootboxes to get things I want either, and that's stopped me from playing games a grand total of 0 times. 

Companies are under no obligation to make the products you want, and the government is not the tool to force them to make things the way you want them made, but believe it or not capitalism has actually been doing a great job here. That's why it's not an issue for anyone who isn't specifically looking for outlier cases to be mad about. 

Because consumers don't want to be forced to use lootboxes and the market has responded by almost never doing that.

Kids should not have gambling boxes marketed to them.  It's as simple as that.  Take the kids out and we can talk about the other stuff.

MadFrenchie

Eldurian said:

I guess just not playing games that use a monetization model that you don't agree with doesn't work? Personally I would never play a game that requires me to buy lootboxes to get things I want either, and that's stopped me from playing games a grand total of 0 times. 

Companies are under no obligation to make the products you want, and the government is not the tool to force them to make things the way you want them made, but believe it or not capitalism has actually been doing a great job here. That's why it's not an issue for anyone who isn't specifically looking for outlier cases to be mad about. 

Because consumers don't want to be forced to use lootboxes and the market has responded by almost never doing that.

Capitalism has done wonders for this genre?  How do you reconcile that with the opinion you hold that the genre is dying?

Lootboxes work by circumventing the need for popular support for the model.  Check the stats on how much of a percentage whales make up in terms of revenue for these games.  You don't need a lot of folks who like it, just relatively few with deep pockets.

Iselin

Eldurian said:

Iselin said:

Eldurian said:

It's a trend but it's a trend I personally feel a level of disgust for. I have never personally purchased a loot box, ever. If I spend my money on a game I want something guaranteed not a chance for a reward.

And games have done an exceptionally good job of allowing me to do that for the most part. It's like in ArcheAge. Everything in the lootboxes came in a wrapped form. I would just buy the items I wanted with in-game gold and skip the RNG. I did a lot of bypassing RNG by just paying upfront for the finished product in that game.

Some people like the rush. Some people enjoy the gambling aspect. Yeah it feeds into unhealthy addictions sometimes, but newsflash, they aren't me. I don't get to tell other people what they can and can't do just because I think it's a bad decision. They can gamble if they want.

So long as it isn't infringing on my rights, it isn't my business. 

I personally hope these companies pull their games from Belgium and Netherlands and offer no substitution. Let them face the fury of their own citizens when the state is telling them they can't play the games they want to play. See how much they love their government overreach then.

Again, you're not looking hard enough. It impacts everyone because things - often the best things - are being put in loot boxes and can't be gotten any other way.

You can shrug that off and say "Well, it's not things I want anyway"... give it time.

Except that's an absolutely false statement for every game I've played with loot boxes. I can't name a single game I've played in which items that are lootboot exclusive aren't tradable. If they are tradable then buying them directly after someone else does the gambling is always in option.

ESO to name just one where this is the case.

Eldurian

MadFrenchie said:

Eldurian said:

I guess just not playing games that use a monetization model that you don't agree with doesn't work? Personally I would never play a game that requires me to buy lootboxes to get things I want either, and that's stopped me from playing games a grand total of 0 times. 

Companies are under no obligation to make the products you want, and the government is not the tool to force them to make things the way you want them made, but believe it or not capitalism has actually been doing a great job here. That's why it's not an issue for anyone who isn't specifically looking for outlier cases to be mad about. 

Because consumers don't want to be forced to use lootboxes and the market has responded by almost never doing that.

Capitalism has done wonders for this genre?  How do you reconcile that with the opinion you hold that the genre is dying?

Lootboxes work by circumventing the need for popular support for the model.  Check the stats on how much of a percentage whales make up in terms of revenue for these games.  You don't need a lot of folks who like it, just relatively few with deep pockets.

Because you're putting words in my mouth bud. I didn't say that capitalism has done wonders for the genre, I've said capitalism has negated the loot box issue by making it so that loot boxes are highly optional in pretty much every game where they exist.

However, if we want to talk about using the nanny state and my opinions.

Leveling additions are unhealthy. They do no good for anyone just have people killing time so they can feel powerful in a virtual world. @Slapshot1188 - They instill unhealthy habits in children and do incredible phycological harm. THINK OF THE CHILDREN DAMMIT!

I move we have the nanny state ban all games with leveling to end these horrible issues. It's the only sensible thing to do.

Slapshot1188

Eldurian said:

MadFrenchie said:

Eldurian said:

I guess just not playing games that use a monetization model that you don't agree with doesn't work? Personally I would never play a game that requires me to buy lootboxes to get things I want either, and that's stopped me from playing games a grand total of 0 times. 

Companies are under no obligation to make the products you want, and the government is not the tool to force them to make things the way you want them made, but believe it or not capitalism has actually been doing a great job here. That's why it's not an issue for anyone who isn't specifically looking for outlier cases to be mad about. 

Because consumers don't want to be forced to use lootboxes and the market has responded by almost never doing that.

Capitalism has done wonders for this genre?  How do you reconcile that with the opinion you hold that the genre is dying?

Lootboxes work by circumventing the need for popular support for the model.  Check the stats on how much of a percentage whales make up in terms of revenue for these games.  You don't need a lot of folks who like it, just relatively few with deep pockets.

Because you're putting words in my mouth bud. I didn't say that capitalism has done wonders for the genre, I've said capitalism has negated the loot box issue by making it so that loot boxes are highly optional in pretty much every game where they exist.

However, if we want to talk about using the nanny state and my opinions.

Leveling additions are unhealthy. They do no good for anyone just have people killing time so they can feel powerful in a virtual world. @Slapshot1188 - They instill unhealthy habits in children and do incredible phycological harm. THINK OF THE CHILDREN DAMMIT!

I move we have the nanny state ban all games with leveling to end these horrible issues. It's the only sensible thing to do.

If you want to make gambling legal for kids then go change the laws.  The laws here say that you can’t market gambling to kids or allow them to participate.  If you think they should then go get the law changed. Personally I think it’s horrible and I think we can do better.  

Your attempted defense is pathetic.  I know YOU can do better.

Iselin

Slapshot1188 said:

Eldurian said:

MadFrenchie said:

Eldurian said:

I guess just not playing games that use a monetization model that you don't agree with doesn't work? Personally I would never play a game that requires me to buy lootboxes to get things I want either, and that's stopped me from playing games a grand total of 0 times. 

Companies are under no obligation to make the products you want, and the government is not the tool to force them to make things the way you want them made, but believe it or not capitalism has actually been doing a great job here. That's why it's not an issue for anyone who isn't specifically looking for outlier cases to be mad about. 

Because consumers don't want to be forced to use lootboxes and the market has responded by almost never doing that.

Capitalism has done wonders for this genre?  How do you reconcile that with the opinion you hold that the genre is dying?

Lootboxes work by circumventing the need for popular support for the model.  Check the stats on how much of a percentage whales make up in terms of revenue for these games.  You don't need a lot of folks who like it, just relatively few with deep pockets.

Because you're putting words in my mouth bud. I didn't say that capitalism has done wonders for the genre, I've said capitalism has negated the loot box issue by making it so that loot boxes are highly optional in pretty much every game where they exist.

However, if we want to talk about using the nanny state and my opinions.

Leveling additions are unhealthy. They do no good for anyone just have people killing time so they can feel powerful in a virtual world. @Slapshot1188 - They instill unhealthy habits in children and do incredible phycological harm. THINK OF THE CHILDREN DAMMIT!

I move we have the nanny state ban all games with leveling to end these horrible issues. It's the only sensible thing to do.

If you want to make gambling legal for kids then go change the laws.  The laws here say that you can’t market gambling to kids or allow them to participate.  If you think they should then go get the law changed. Personally I think it’s horrible and I think we can do better.  

Your attempted defense is pathetic.  I know YOU can do better.

I only half agree with you. I'm not so sure he can do better on this particular topic.

MMOGamer71

Follow the money - lootboxes are gambling = EU wants to tax them.

Write this down.