That is because the law is a laggard. What these companies are doing should be legislated and controlled but we are not there yet.
" Well, the way I see it, there's what's legal and there's what's right."
--Perry Mason
Is that quote from the original black and white TV series?
It sounds like something that would be so.
No, From the excellent reboot on HBO. I just finished watching season 1 and season 2 has just started.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Big caveat upfront: this is extremely amateur analysis so take it with a pinch of salt. I've been trying to get a "professional" journalist to do something like this for years but with no luck, so figured I'd give it a go.
My source data is shit, but it was the best I could find. See bottom of post for notes on the data.
1) MMORPGs Released Per Year
This makes the genre look like it's in real trouble. The last decade has seen a dramatic dropoff in terms of new games released.
Obviously, if we're looking to the future then we need to know what games are in development, but there's no data on that.
2) MMORPGs Available to Play Per Year
This makes the genre look a lot healthier. Despite the lack of new games, the old ones are still playable, so if you are a big fan of the genre then you still have a ton a choice.
That said, we all know that it is much harder to sell an old product compared to a new product. Also, given the typical lifespan of an MMO, expect to see a big dropoff in total playable games in the next few years as the old games shut down without being replaced by newer ones.
I also wonder whether this flattening of the graph simply represents the genre reaching maturity. Perhaps the market can only support about 130 MMOs? Without population data, we'll never know, but it's fun to speculate!
Yeh, my base data came from Wikipedia, hence the big caveat at the top of the post. If you look through the wiki, you'll all be able to spot games in the list that aren't massively multiplayer. What that means is that these graphs are actually very optimistic: the situation is actually much worse. But, this list didn't include many of the usual offenders for mislabelling (like Diablo or Destiny or Fortnite) so it seemed better than some other alternatives.
I had intended to go through the list and work out the player capacity of each game (i.e. the scale of the multiplayer) but that proved to be impossible. Hardly any of the games on that list give official data on the size of their multiplayer, and it seemed hard to find community players who had posted about it. Understandable for old games, but even something like Lost Ark I couldn't find any data!
In terms of data sanitisation, there were a few things I did which will affect the graphs:
Dates were all scaled back to just the year. So, if one game cancelled in jan, and another launched in dec, the graph thinks both were playable all year. Again, this makes the graphs more optimistic than reality.
If the game hasn't released, it's not in the graphs.
Everything before Meridian 59 was removed. Those games may have inspired MMORPGs, but they weren't MMORPGs.
The graphs are EU-focused. There are a bunch of games that are still running in Asia or NA, but if they got cancelled in EU then I count them as cancelled. This is, I suppose, a selfish point of view, but hell, if I can't play the game, it may as well not exist! That said, wiki is sparse on a lot of details so i expect some of the games have never been available in the EU.
Guys, this debate about predatory corporate practices involving children could just as easily be directed at every toy and food producer since the 1950s. It's not a new problem.
As someone who grew up in the 1960s, the primary difference is that the average 60s kid had roughly $5 dollars to their name, whereas children today have access to lots of cash and even parent's credit cards. When did being a kid become so financially lucrative?
Meanwhile, keep up the discussion. It's been interesting to follow, even if I don't participate all that much. I'll just go back to playing with this G.I. Joe and eating some Fruit Loops and pretend that these vices somehow aren't related to runaway gambling. You're welcome to join me.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Comes down to parenting. And how the kid was raised and taught ..
Entirely so, for very young children... but progressively less so as the child ages. Supervision becomes less direct over time. Opportunities for discretionary spending increase, due to allowance often initially and later from earned money. Delinquency potential increases with age and exposure to non-parental influences, which may lead to related theft through unauthorized credit card use or simply the taking of money.
Even raising and teaching a child well does not guarantee an ideal or even good outcome, but at least helps to increase those odds.
The best argument for the removal of chance based purchases from games is their potential bad influence on children at an age where they are less equipped to mentally protect themselves from such compared to most adults.
Even if the kids can't purchase them, it is conceivably believable they may still be affected by their allure which may come back to haunt them in later years when such purchases can be made.
Both the parental and company responsibility arguments have merit when children are involved, which is what mainly makes it interesting to discuss. If one was clearly right and the other wrong there wouldn't be much to talk about.
They would have called it gambling and brought it under the gambling rules but the damn gaming industry has been paying and greasing pockets to make sure it won't be. All the mock hearings and supposed committees are all just for show.
Until that happens there will never be accountability for this slimy shit.
I think until politicians saw this sort of thing on their mobiles or their children gambling in games they had no idea of what was going on. There was a clear divide between casino games which were regulated and other video games which did not need any regulation. Since that realisation the lobbying has been intense to slow the changes to the law down, meanwhile every studio using the like of loot boxes is looking at what they can replace them with if they have to drop them.
I believe some of the expressed concern was more political in nature than genuine as though there was a fair bit said about monetization practices for a time so far as I know with little was actually done. Still, by what you say about lobbying it may have kindled hope which likely burns all the brighter with some of that done overseas.
Whether the replacement that comes when that current is forced aside is any better will be interesting to see.
Drug use in kids under 18 is a parenting issue. So we should just ignore the dealers and focus on the parents. That’s the equivalent argument some are making.
In reality, whether a parent is doing a poor job is quite a separate issue from whether these companies are intentionally targeting and exploiting kids. Both can be true but that doesn’t mean we ignore the company’s role.
I am not making the false equivalence you contend.
In reality poor parental control is what allows children to have access to and spend large amounts of money on anything, and can contribute to their delinquency otherwise.
In reality poor parenting is what allows children to have access to environments where drug use is rampant and can contribute to their delinquency.
Again- Meaningless.
That doesn't mean that you do not address drug dealers/company
Adequate parenting or lack thereof are never meaningless.
Illegal drugs and their sale are targeted at multiple levels. The illegal sale of legal drugs is also so targeted. Neither have any relevance to in game purchases.
I don’t think you are following the conversation. Either purposefully or honestly.
The parent argument is meaningless in that it doesn’t excuse the company. And as for the drugs yes that is my point. They are addressed on multiple levels. We don’t just say “parents “ and excuse the source.
Well the difference is , the parent has full control of the use/exposure and access to The PC and CC and inputting the info approving open use. .
For the drug comparison to be compatable , you would assume the parent is putting a dealer in the kids room and saying don't use drugs there bad and walking away.
Nope.
There are countless ways around that. Maybe on their phones. Maybe at their friends house. And you don't always need a credit card. You can use the ever popular gamecards which can be bought for cash.
Then there is the FACT that teenagers can actually, you know, have jobs. And earn money.
The length that some of you will go to excuse companies is kind of crazy. Nobody I know is saying that parents have no responsibility for their kids but the ultimate root cause is the companies who are targeting those kids.
Please provide the scientific proof that companies are directly targeting children (rather than gamers in general) in a predatory manner..and not just one or two odd outliers...or old articles from years ago.
Video game loot boxes linked to problem gambling, study shows
Comes down to parenting. And how the kid was raised and taught ..
Entirely so, for very young children... but progressively less so as the child ages. Supervision becomes less direct over time. Opportunities for discretionary spending increase, due to allowance often initially and later from earned money. Delinquency potential increases with age and exposure to non-parental influences, which may lead to related theft through unauthorized credit card use or simply the taking of money.
Even raising and teaching a child well does not guarantee an ideal or even good outcome, but at least helps to increase those odds.
The best argument for the removal of chance based purchases from games is their potential bad influence on children at an age where they are less equipped to mentally protect themselves from such compared to most adults.
Even if the kids can't purchase them, it is conceivably believable they may still be affected by their allure which may come back to haunt them in later years when such purchases can be made.
Both the parental and company responsibility arguments have merit when children are involved, which is what mainly makes it interesting to discuss. If one was clearly right and the other wrong there wouldn't be much to talk about.
I have raised 3 kids , youngest is now 11 , none of them ever had the ability to online purchase , without me actually making the purchase.Till they were 16 , and then it was still controlled with a low limit card . And even with that they still ask me or there Mother if they can get something..Simple as that, Simple parenting ..
So I'll ask anyone with kids here in the demographic, have any of your kids done this rampant addictive out of control spending that is the uproar .
Comes down to parenting. And how the kid was raised and taught ..
Entirely so, for very young children... but progressively less so as the child ages. Supervision becomes less direct over time. Opportunities for discretionary spending increase, due to allowance often initially and later from earned money. Delinquency potential increases with age and exposure to non-parental influences, which may lead to related theft through unauthorized credit card use or simply the taking of money.
Even raising and teaching a child well does not guarantee an ideal or even good outcome, but at least helps to increase those odds.
The best argument for the removal of chance based purchases from games is their potential bad influence on children at an age where they are less equipped to mentally protect themselves from such compared to most adults.
Even if the kids can't purchase them, it is conceivably believable they may still be affected by their allure which may come back to haunt them in later years when such purchases can be made.
Both the parental and company responsibility arguments have merit when children are involved, which is what mainly makes it interesting to discuss. If one was clearly right and the other wrong there wouldn't be much to talk about.
I have raised 3 kids , youngest is now 11 , none of them ever had the ability to online purchase , without me actually making the purchase.Till they were 16 , and then it was still controlled with a low limit card . And even with that they still ask me or there Mother if they can get something..Simple as that, Simple parenting ..
So I'll ask anyone with kids here in the demographic, have any of your kids done this rampant addictive out of control spending that is the uproar .
Waiting for responses.
I'm glad it went so well for you. Such is not universal in even the best of conditions.
Drug use in kids under 18 is a parenting issue. So we should just ignore the dealers and focus on the parents. That’s the equivalent argument some are making.
In reality, whether a parent is doing a poor job is quite a separate issue from whether these companies are intentionally targeting and exploiting kids. Both can be true but that doesn’t mean we ignore the company’s role.
I am not making the false equivalence you contend.
In reality poor parental control is what allows children to have access to and spend large amounts of money on anything, and can contribute to their delinquency otherwise.
In reality poor parenting is what allows children to have access to environments where drug use is rampant and can contribute to their delinquency.
Again- Meaningless.
That doesn't mean that you do not address drug dealers/company
Adequate parenting or lack thereof are never meaningless.
Illegal drugs and their sale are targeted at multiple levels. The illegal sale of legal drugs is also so targeted. Neither have any relevance to in game purchases.
I don’t think you are following the conversation. Either purposefully or honestly.
The parent argument is meaningless in that it doesn’t excuse the company. And as for the drugs yes that is my point. They are addressed on multiple levels. We don’t just say “parents “ and excuse the source.
Well the difference is , the parent has full control of the use/exposure and access to The PC and CC and inputting the info approving open use. .
For the drug comparison to be compatable , you would assume the parent is putting a dealer in the kids room and saying don't use drugs there bad and walking away.
Nope.
There are countless ways around that. Maybe on their phones. Maybe at their friends house. And you don't always need a credit card. You can use the ever popular gamecards which can be bought for cash.
Then there is the FACT that teenagers can actually, you know, have jobs. And earn money.
The length that some of you will go to excuse companies is kind of crazy. Nobody I know is saying that parents have no responsibility for their kids but the ultimate root cause is the companies who are targeting those kids.
Please provide the scientific proof that companies are directly targeting children (rather than gamers in general) in a predatory manner..and not just one or two odd outliers...or old articles from years ago.
I took courses in college that discussed how to target children with cartoons, color scheme, type faces , wording ect. Literally designing pop culture.
Guys, this debate about predatory corporate practices involving children could just as easily be directed at every toy and food producer since the 1950s. It's not a new problem.
As someone who grew up in the 1960s, the primary difference is that the average 60s kid had roughly $5 dollars to their name, whereas children today have access to lots of cash and even parent's credit cards. When did being a kid become so financially lucrative?
I think it’s also because companies have obfuscated it behind layers of currency which dilutes the impact of spending. You are spending blue crystals that you bought with your red ores (that you bought with real money)
Then beyond that it’s due to the immediate nature. In the old days one would go to the store and buy a pack of xyz cards. Then go home and open them. Today you hit a button. Sparkles and bells all over the place… and you get your cards digitally on screen. With a nice prompt to get another pack!
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
Guys, this debate about predatory corporate practices involving children could just as easily be directed at every toy and food producer since the 1950s. It's not a new problem.
As someone who grew up in the 1960s, the primary difference is that the average 60s kid had roughly $5 dollars to their name, whereas children today have access to lots of cash and even parent's credit cards. When did being a kid become so financially lucrative?
Meanwhile, keep up the discussion. It's been interesting to follow, even if I don't participate all that much. I'll just go back to playing with this G.I. Joe and eating some Fruit Loops and pretend that these vices somehow aren't related to runaway gambling. You're welcome to join me.
In the 60's $5 could get you a fit bit. I remember new comics being 12 cents each back then, and the lengthy persuasion it took for my father to part with that much for it.
Things were so different back then.
Mothers as often or not were at home and we kids were good at entertaining ourselves with what little we had and could find. Days off school were full of adventures without adult supervision, with the occasional pit stop for food or a glass of kool-aid that my mother kept in constant abundant supply for the neighbourhood kids.
We didn't need much cash, or miss it. There was plenty to do and none of it cost anything. A different world from what kids get now, at least where I live.
Comes down to parenting. And how the kid was raised and taught ..
Entirely so, for very young children... but progressively less so as the child ages. Supervision becomes less direct over time. Opportunities for discretionary spending increase, due to allowance often initially and later from earned money. Delinquency potential increases with age and exposure to non-parental influences, which may lead to related theft through unauthorized credit card use or simply the taking of money.
Even raising and teaching a child well does not guarantee an ideal or even good outcome, but at least helps to increase those odds.
The best argument for the removal of chance based purchases from games is their potential bad influence on children at an age where they are less equipped to mentally protect themselves from such compared to most adults.
Even if the kids can't purchase them, it is conceivably believable they may still be affected by their allure which may come back to haunt them in later years when such purchases can be made.
Both the parental and company responsibility arguments have merit when children are involved, which is what mainly makes it interesting to discuss. If one was clearly right and the other wrong there wouldn't be much to talk about.
I have raised 3 kids , youngest is now 11 , none of them ever had the ability to online purchase , without me actually making the purchase.Till they were 16 , and then it was still controlled with a low limit card . And even with that they still ask me or there Mother if they can get something..Simple as that, Simple parenting ..
So I'll ask anyone with kids here in the demographic, have any of your kids done this rampant addictive out of control spending that is the uproar .
Waiting for responses.
I'm glad it went so well for you. Such is not universal in even the best of conditions.
Comes down to parenting. And how the kid was raised and taught ..
Entirely so, for very young children... but progressively less so as the child ages. Supervision becomes less direct over time. Opportunities for discretionary spending increase, due to allowance often initially and later from earned money. Delinquency potential increases with age and exposure to non-parental influences, which may lead to related theft through unauthorized credit card use or simply the taking of money.
Even raising and teaching a child well does not guarantee an ideal or even good outcome, but at least helps to increase those odds.
The best argument for the removal of chance based purchases from games is their potential bad influence on children at an age where they are less equipped to mentally protect themselves from such compared to most adults.
Even if the kids can't purchase them, it is conceivably believable they may still be affected by their allure which may come back to haunt them in later years when such purchases can be made.
Both the parental and company responsibility arguments have merit when children are involved, which is what mainly makes it interesting to discuss. If one was clearly right and the other wrong there wouldn't be much to talk about.
I have raised 3 kids , youngest is now 11 , none of them ever had the ability to online purchase , without me actually making the purchase.Till they were 16 , and then it was still controlled with a low limit card . And even with that they still ask me or there Mother if they can get something..Simple as that, Simple parenting ..
So I'll ask anyone with kids here in the demographic, have any of your kids done this rampant addictive out of control spending that is the uproar .
Waiting for responses.
I'm glad it went so well for you. Such is not universal in even the best of conditions.
Thx for your response , so , so far Noone.
None of my kids were hooked on drugs, pregnant as a teen or sex trafficked either. That doesn't mean I cannot acknowledge that each of those is a problem.
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
Comes down to parenting. And how the kid was raised and taught ..
Entirely so, for very young children... but progressively less so as the child ages. Supervision becomes less direct over time. Opportunities for discretionary spending increase, due to allowance often initially and later from earned money. Delinquency potential increases with age and exposure to non-parental influences, which may lead to related theft through unauthorized credit card use or simply the taking of money.
Even raising and teaching a child well does not guarantee an ideal or even good outcome, but at least helps to increase those odds.
The best argument for the removal of chance based purchases from games is their potential bad influence on children at an age where they are less equipped to mentally protect themselves from such compared to most adults.
Even if the kids can't purchase them, it is conceivably believable they may still be affected by their allure which may come back to haunt them in later years when such purchases can be made.
Both the parental and company responsibility arguments have merit when children are involved, which is what mainly makes it interesting to discuss. If one was clearly right and the other wrong there wouldn't be much to talk about.
I have raised 3 kids , youngest is now 11 , none of them ever had the ability to online purchase , without me actually making the purchase.Till they were 16 , and then it was still controlled with a low limit card . And even with that they still ask me or there Mother if they can get something..Simple as that, Simple parenting ..
So I'll ask anyone with kids here in the demographic, have any of your kids done this rampant addictive out of control spending that is the uproar .
Waiting for responses.
I'm glad it went so well for you. Such is not universal in even the best of conditions.
Thx for your response , so , so far Noone.
None of my kids were hooked on drugs, pregnant as a teen or sex trafficked either. That doesn't mean I cannot acknowledge that each of those is a problem.
Comes down to parenting. And how the kid was raised and taught ..
Entirely so, for very young children... but progressively less so as the child ages. Supervision becomes less direct over time. Opportunities for discretionary spending increase, due to allowance often initially and later from earned money. Delinquency potential increases with age and exposure to non-parental influences, which may lead to related theft through unauthorized credit card use or simply the taking of money.
Even raising and teaching a child well does not guarantee an ideal or even good outcome, but at least helps to increase those odds.
The best argument for the removal of chance based purchases from games is their potential bad influence on children at an age where they are less equipped to mentally protect themselves from such compared to most adults.
Even if the kids can't purchase them, it is conceivably believable they may still be affected by their allure which may come back to haunt them in later years when such purchases can be made.
Both the parental and company responsibility arguments have merit when children are involved, which is what mainly makes it interesting to discuss. If one was clearly right and the other wrong there wouldn't be much to talk about.
I have raised 3 kids , youngest is now 11 , none of them ever had the ability to online purchase , without me actually making the purchase.Till they were 16 , and then it was still controlled with a low limit card . And even with that they still ask me or there Mother if they can get something..Simple as that, Simple parenting ..
So I'll ask anyone with kids here in the demographic, have any of your kids done this rampant addictive out of control spending that is the uproar .
Waiting for responses.
I'm glad it went so well for you. Such is not universal in even the best of conditions.
Thx for your response , so , so far Noone.
None of my kids were hooked on drugs, pregnant as a teen or sex trafficked either. That doesn't mean I cannot acknowledge that each of those is a problem.
Thx for the response , another , No.
Hint- When you ask meaningless questions you are going to get few responses and will likely be meaningless as well.
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
Comes down to parenting. And how the kid was raised and taught ..
Entirely so, for very young children... but progressively less so as the child ages. Supervision becomes less direct over time. Opportunities for discretionary spending increase, due to allowance often initially and later from earned money. Delinquency potential increases with age and exposure to non-parental influences, which may lead to related theft through unauthorized credit card use or simply the taking of money.
Even raising and teaching a child well does not guarantee an ideal or even good outcome, but at least helps to increase those odds.
The best argument for the removal of chance based purchases from games is their potential bad influence on children at an age where they are less equipped to mentally protect themselves from such compared to most adults.
Even if the kids can't purchase them, it is conceivably believable they may still be affected by their allure which may come back to haunt them in later years when such purchases can be made.
Both the parental and company responsibility arguments have merit when children are involved, which is what mainly makes it interesting to discuss. If one was clearly right and the other wrong there wouldn't be much to talk about.
I have raised 3 kids , youngest is now 11 , none of them ever had the ability to online purchase , without me actually making the purchase.Till they were 16 , and then it was still controlled with a low limit card . And even with that they still ask me or there Mother if they can get something..Simple as that, Simple parenting ..
So I'll ask anyone with kids here in the demographic, have any of your kids done this rampant addictive out of control spending that is the uproar .
Waiting for responses.
I'm glad it went so well for you. Such is not universal in even the best of conditions.
Thx for your response , so , so far Noone.
None of my kids were hooked on drugs, pregnant as a teen or sex trafficked either. That doesn't mean I cannot acknowledge that each of those is a problem.
Thx for the response , another , No.
Hint- When you ask meaningless questions you are going to get few responses and will likely be meaningless as well.
Got it , so far in this entire community we have NO examples firsthand , of this widespread addictive out iof control child spending ..
Comes down to parenting. And how the kid was raised and taught ..
Entirely so, for very young children... but progressively less so as the child ages. Supervision becomes less direct over time. Opportunities for discretionary spending increase, due to allowance often initially and later from earned money. Delinquency potential increases with age and exposure to non-parental influences, which may lead to related theft through unauthorized credit card use or simply the taking of money.
Even raising and teaching a child well does not guarantee an ideal or even good outcome, but at least helps to increase those odds.
The best argument for the removal of chance based purchases from games is their potential bad influence on children at an age where they are less equipped to mentally protect themselves from such compared to most adults.
Even if the kids can't purchase them, it is conceivably believable they may still be affected by their allure which may come back to haunt them in later years when such purchases can be made.
Both the parental and company responsibility arguments have merit when children are involved, which is what mainly makes it interesting to discuss. If one was clearly right and the other wrong there wouldn't be much to talk about.
I have raised 3 kids , youngest is now 11 , none of them ever had the ability to online purchase , without me actually making the purchase.Till they were 16 , and then it was still controlled with a low limit card . And even with that they still ask me or there Mother if they can get something..Simple as that, Simple parenting ..
So I'll ask anyone with kids here in the demographic, have any of your kids done this rampant addictive out of control spending that is the uproar .
Waiting for responses.
I'm glad it went so well for you. Such is not universal in even the best of conditions.
Thx for your response , so , so far Noone.
None of my kids were hooked on drugs, pregnant as a teen or sex trafficked either. That doesn't mean I cannot acknowledge that each of those is a problem.
Thx for the response , another , No.
Hint- When you ask meaningless questions you are going to get few responses and will likely be meaningless as well.
Got it , so far in this entire community we have NO examples firsthand , of this widespread addictive out iof control child spending ..
Yeah… zero of 3 people. You should get this published in The New England Journal of Medicine or something.
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
Comes down to parenting. And how the kid was raised and taught ..
Entirely so, for very young children... but progressively less so as the child ages. Supervision becomes less direct over time. Opportunities for discretionary spending increase, due to allowance often initially and later from earned money. Delinquency potential increases with age and exposure to non-parental influences, which may lead to related theft through unauthorized credit card use or simply the taking of money.
Even raising and teaching a child well does not guarantee an ideal or even good outcome, but at least helps to increase those odds.
The best argument for the removal of chance based purchases from games is their potential bad influence on children at an age where they are less equipped to mentally protect themselves from such compared to most adults.
Even if the kids can't purchase them, it is conceivably believable they may still be affected by their allure which may come back to haunt them in later years when such purchases can be made.
Both the parental and company responsibility arguments have merit when children are involved, which is what mainly makes it interesting to discuss. If one was clearly right and the other wrong there wouldn't be much to talk about.
I have raised 3 kids , youngest is now 11 , none of them ever had the ability to online purchase , without me actually making the purchase.Till they were 16 , and then it was still controlled with a low limit card . And even with that they still ask me or there Mother if they can get something..Simple as that, Simple parenting ..
So I'll ask anyone with kids here in the demographic, have any of your kids done this rampant addictive out of control spending that is the uproar .
Waiting for responses.
I'm glad it went so well for you. Such is not universal in even the best of conditions.
Thx for your response , so , so far Noone.
None of my kids were hooked on drugs, pregnant as a teen or sex trafficked either. That doesn't mean I cannot acknowledge that each of those is a problem.
Thx for the response , another , No.
Hint- When you ask meaningless questions you are going to get few responses and will likely be meaningless as well.
Got it , so far in this entire community we have NO examples firsthand , of this widespread addictive out iof control child spending ..
Yeah… zero of 3 people. You should get this published in The New England Journal of Medicine or something.
Well this is a large community , so waiting on reply, so far we have nome aside from weak sarcasm and definitive Nos.
But , what to you attribute your success to in avoiding such child rearing pitfalls, Good Parenting orrrrr Luck .
Comes down to parenting. And how the kid was raised and taught ..
Entirely so, for very young children... but progressively less so as the child ages. Supervision becomes less direct over time. Opportunities for discretionary spending increase, due to allowance often initially and later from earned money. Delinquency potential increases with age and exposure to non-parental influences, which may lead to related theft through unauthorized credit card use or simply the taking of money.
Even raising and teaching a child well does not guarantee an ideal or even good outcome, but at least helps to increase those odds.
The best argument for the removal of chance based purchases from games is their potential bad influence on children at an age where they are less equipped to mentally protect themselves from such compared to most adults.
Even if the kids can't purchase them, it is conceivably believable they may still be affected by their allure which may come back to haunt them in later years when such purchases can be made.
Both the parental and company responsibility arguments have merit when children are involved, which is what mainly makes it interesting to discuss. If one was clearly right and the other wrong there wouldn't be much to talk about.
I have raised 3 kids , youngest is now 11 , none of them ever had the ability to online purchase , without me actually making the purchase.Till they were 16 , and then it was still controlled with a low limit card . And even with that they still ask me or there Mother if they can get something..Simple as that, Simple parenting ..
So I'll ask anyone with kids here in the demographic, have any of your kids done this rampant addictive out of control spending that is the uproar .
Waiting for responses.
I'm glad it went so well for you. Such is not universal in even the best of conditions.
Thx for your response , so , so far Noone.
None of my kids were hooked on drugs, pregnant as a teen or sex trafficked either. That doesn't mean I cannot acknowledge that each of those is a problem.
Thx for the response , another , No.
Hint- When you ask meaningless questions you are going to get few responses and will likely be meaningless as well.
Got it , so far in this entire community we have NO examples firsthand , of this widespread addictive out iof control child spending ..
Yeah… zero of 3 people. You should get this published in The New England Journal of Medicine or something.
Well this is a large community , so waiting on reply, so far we have nome aside from weak sarcasm and definitive Nos.
But , what to you attribute your success to in avoiding such child rearing pitfalls, Good Parenting orrrrr Luck .
Both.
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
Comes down to parenting. And how the kid was raised and taught ..
Entirely so, for very young children... but progressively less so as the child ages. Supervision becomes less direct over time. Opportunities for discretionary spending increase, due to allowance often initially and later from earned money. Delinquency potential increases with age and exposure to non-parental influences, which may lead to related theft through unauthorized credit card use or simply the taking of money.
Even raising and teaching a child well does not guarantee an ideal or even good outcome, but at least helps to increase those odds.
The best argument for the removal of chance based purchases from games is their potential bad influence on children at an age where they are less equipped to mentally protect themselves from such compared to most adults.
Even if the kids can't purchase them, it is conceivably believable they may still be affected by their allure which may come back to haunt them in later years when such purchases can be made.
Both the parental and company responsibility arguments have merit when children are involved, which is what mainly makes it interesting to discuss. If one was clearly right and the other wrong there wouldn't be much to talk about.
I have raised 3 kids , youngest is now 11 , none of them ever had the ability to online purchase , without me actually making the purchase.Till they were 16 , and then it was still controlled with a low limit card . And even with that they still ask me or there Mother if they can get something..Simple as that, Simple parenting ..
So I'll ask anyone with kids here in the demographic, have any of your kids done this rampant addictive out of control spending that is the uproar .
Waiting for responses.
I'm glad it went so well for you. Such is not universal in even the best of conditions.
Thx for your response , so , so far Noone.
None of my kids were hooked on drugs, pregnant as a teen or sex trafficked either. That doesn't mean I cannot acknowledge that each of those is a problem.
Thx for the response , another , No.
Hint- When you ask meaningless questions you are going to get few responses and will likely be meaningless as well.
Got it , so far in this entire community we have NO examples firsthand , of this widespread addictive out iof control child spending ..
These companies are still targeting kids with predatory monetization and gambling in video games regardless.
I don't have kids of my own but I have a niece who is 12 now and I can not tell you how many times I saw her play something with this crap in it.
So if you have kids you must know this is obviously a problem. Which can be demonstrated by the very fact that you just proclaimed you protected them from it.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
It's just someone trying to turn attention from an issue as a broader social problem, into one of anecdotal argument.
I also notice there is a logic bias in assumption made within the quotes from Dark. "Anyone here" is going to be people that are inherently interested in gaming and surrounding topics. IE, "in the know", at least more so than others. How about go and ask the Ballerina Mom's Facebook group how much they know about gaming, consoles, PCs, or how to do random stuff with cellphones in general. Fair bet to say you'll very quickly find a lot of unknowing responses.
Yes, a parent is directly responsible for the wellbeing of their child and to be aware of things that can affect them. There is a massive information gap to be considered though here, and as others even pointed out, someone who isn't in the know about gaming in general isn't going to necessarily even be aware there is a potential problem.
To try and take one's personal knowledge and perspective and transpose that onto others to assume culpability, is itself a logical fallacy. Projection makes for bad assumptions.
Though this does bring up a separate issue to note, being obfuscation of information and the issue of just how clear these issue are or aren't from an outside perspective.
A ton more social education of exploitative practices needs to be done beyond the sphere of gaming-specific media before you can expect a random laymen to be conscious of such.
Comes down to parenting. And how the kid was raised and taught ..
Entirely so, for very young children... but progressively less so as the child ages. Supervision becomes less direct over time. Opportunities for discretionary spending increase, due to allowance often initially and later from earned money. Delinquency potential increases with age and exposure to non-parental influences, which may lead to related theft through unauthorized credit card use or simply the taking of money.
Even raising and teaching a child well does not guarantee an ideal or even good outcome, but at least helps to increase those odds.
The best argument for the removal of chance based purchases from games is their potential bad influence on children at an age where they are less equipped to mentally protect themselves from such compared to most adults.
Even if the kids can't purchase them, it is conceivably believable they may still be affected by their allure which may come back to haunt them in later years when such purchases can be made.
Both the parental and company responsibility arguments have merit when children are involved, which is what mainly makes it interesting to discuss. If one was clearly right and the other wrong there wouldn't be much to talk about.
I have raised 3 kids , youngest is now 11 , none of them ever had the ability to online purchase , without me actually making the purchase.Till they were 16 , and then it was still controlled with a low limit card . And even with that they still ask me or there Mother if they can get something..Simple as that, Simple parenting ..
So I'll ask anyone with kids here in the demographic, have any of your kids done this rampant addictive out of control spending that is the uproar .
Waiting for responses.
I'm glad it went so well for you. Such is not universal in even the best of conditions.
Thx for your response , so , so far Noone.
None of my kids were hooked on drugs, pregnant as a teen or sex trafficked either. That doesn't mean I cannot acknowledge that each of those is a problem.
Thx for the response , another , No.
Hint- When you ask meaningless questions you are going to get few responses and will likely be meaningless as well.
Being meaningless in terms of the whole doesn't prevent the posting of a small number of extreme cases as evidence of unfathomable peril. I don't see why any responses to his query need be of a higher standard or great in quantity to draw similarly sweeping conclusions as equally meaningful.
Comes down to parenting. And how the kid was raised and taught ..
Entirely so, for very young children... but progressively less so as the child ages. Supervision becomes less direct over time. Opportunities for discretionary spending increase, due to allowance often initially and later from earned money. Delinquency potential increases with age and exposure to non-parental influences, which may lead to related theft through unauthorized credit card use or simply the taking of money.
Even raising and teaching a child well does not guarantee an ideal or even good outcome, but at least helps to increase those odds.
The best argument for the removal of chance based purchases from games is their potential bad influence on children at an age where they are less equipped to mentally protect themselves from such compared to most adults.
Even if the kids can't purchase them, it is conceivably believable they may still be affected by their allure which may come back to haunt them in later years when such purchases can be made.
Both the parental and company responsibility arguments have merit when children are involved, which is what mainly makes it interesting to discuss. If one was clearly right and the other wrong there wouldn't be much to talk about.
I have raised 3 kids , youngest is now 11 , none of them ever had the ability to online purchase , without me actually making the purchase.Till they were 16 , and then it was still controlled with a low limit card . And even with that they still ask me or there Mother if they can get something..Simple as that, Simple parenting ..
So I'll ask anyone with kids here in the demographic, have any of your kids done this rampant addictive out of control spending that is the uproar .
Waiting for responses.
I'm glad it went so well for you. Such is not universal in even the best of conditions.
Thx for your response , so , so far Noone.
None of my kids were hooked on drugs, pregnant as a teen or sex trafficked either. That doesn't mean I cannot acknowledge that each of those is a problem.
Thx for the response , another , No.
Hint- When you ask meaningless questions you are going to get few responses and will likely be meaningless as well.
Being meaningless in terms of the whole doesn't prevent the posting of a small number of extreme cases as evidence of unfathomable peril. I don't see why any responses to his query need be of a higher standard or great in quantity to draw similarly sweeping conclusions as equally meaningful.
Because you are making another false equivalency. The effect of LootBoxes on children has actual scientific studies demonstrating how it's targeted and how it affects them.
But sure... we can put up a post buried in a random MMORPG.COM thread and after 5 hours of no responses say they are both basically equal.
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
Drug use in kids under 18 is a parenting issue. So we should just ignore the dealers and focus on the parents. That’s the equivalent argument some are making.
In reality, whether a parent is doing a poor job is quite a separate issue from whether these companies are intentionally targeting and exploiting kids. Both can be true but that doesn’t mean we ignore the company’s role.
I am not making the false equivalence you contend.
In reality poor parental control is what allows children to have access to and spend large amounts of money on anything, and can contribute to their delinquency otherwise.
In reality poor parenting is what allows children to have access to environments where drug use is rampant and can contribute to their delinquency.
Again- Meaningless.
That doesn't mean that you do not address drug dealers/company
Adequate parenting or lack thereof are never meaningless.
Illegal drugs and their sale are targeted at multiple levels. The illegal sale of legal drugs is also so targeted. Neither have any relevance to in game purchases.
I don’t think you are following the conversation. Either purposefully or honestly.
The parent argument is meaningless in that it doesn’t excuse the company. And as for the drugs yes that is my point. They are addressed on multiple levels. We don’t just say “parents “ and excuse the source.
Well the difference is , the parent has full control of the use/exposure and access to The PC and CC and inputting the info approving open use. .
For the drug comparison to be compatable , you would assume the parent is putting a dealer in the kids room and saying don't use drugs there bad and walking away.
Nope.
There are countless ways around that. Maybe on their phones. Maybe at their friends house. And you don't always need a credit card. You can use the ever popular gamecards which can be bought for cash.
Then there is the FACT that teenagers can actually, you know, have jobs. And earn money.
The length that some of you will go to excuse companies is kind of crazy. Nobody I know is saying that parents have no responsibility for their kids but the ultimate root cause is the companies who are targeting those kids.
Please provide the scientific proof that companies are directly targeting children (rather than gamers in general) in a predatory manner..and not just one or two odd outliers...or old articles from years ago.
I took courses in college that discussed how to target children with cartoons, color scheme, type faces , wording ect. Literally designing pop culture.
None of which is considered illegal or "predatory", it's called marketing.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Entirely so, for very young children... but progressively less so as the child ages. Supervision becomes less direct over time. Opportunities for discretionary spending increase, due to allowance often initially and later from earned money. Delinquency potential increases with age and exposure to non-parental influences, which may lead to related theft through unauthorized credit card use or simply the taking of money.
Even raising and teaching a child well does not guarantee an ideal or even good outcome, but at least helps to increase those odds.
The best argument for the removal of chance based purchases from games is their potential bad influence on children at an age where they are less equipped to mentally protect themselves from such compared to most adults.
Even if the kids can't purchase them, it is conceivably believable they may still be affected by their allure which may come back to haunt them in later years when such purchases can be made.
Both the parental and company responsibility arguments have merit when children are involved, which is what mainly makes it interesting to discuss. If one was clearly right and the other wrong there wouldn't be much to talk about.
I believe some of the expressed concern was more political in nature than genuine as though there was a fair bit said about monetization practices for a time so far as I know with little was actually done. Still, by what you say about lobbying it may have kindled hope which likely burns all the brighter with some of that done overseas.
Whether the replacement that comes when that current is forced aside is any better will be interesting to see.
this kindof heat is created to make sure EA and others know they are late on their lobbyist payments.
So I'll ask anyone with kids here in the demographic, have any of your kids done this rampant addictive out of control spending that is the uproar .
Waiting for responses.
I didn't know about that reboot. I'm happy to hear they did well by it.
I'm glad it went so well for you. Such is not universal in even the best of conditions.
Then beyond that it’s due to the immediate nature. In the old days one would go to the store and buy a pack of xyz cards. Then go home and open them. Today you hit a button. Sparkles and bells all over the place… and you get your cards digitally on screen. With a nice prompt to get another pack!
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 the 60's $5 could get you a fit bit. I remember new comics being 12 cents each back then, and the lengthy persuasion it took for my father to part with that much for it.
Things were so different back then.
Mothers as often or not were at home and we kids were good at entertaining ourselves with what little we had and could find. Days off school were full of adventures without adult supervision, with the occasional pit stop for food or a glass of kool-aid that my mother kept in constant abundant supply for the neighbourhood kids.
We didn't need much cash, or miss it. There was plenty to do and none of it cost anything. A different world from what kids get now, at least where I live.
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
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
But , what to you attribute your success to in avoiding such child rearing pitfalls, Good Parenting orrrrr Luck .
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
I don't have kids of my own but I have a niece who is 12 now and I can not tell you how many times I saw her play something with this crap in it.
So if you have kids you must know this is obviously a problem. Which can be demonstrated by the very fact that you just proclaimed you protected them from it.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/I also notice there is a logic bias in assumption made within the quotes from Dark. "Anyone here" is going to be people that are inherently interested in gaming and surrounding topics. IE, "in the know", at least more so than others. How about go and ask the Ballerina Mom's Facebook group how much they know about gaming, consoles, PCs, or how to do random stuff with cellphones in general. Fair bet to say you'll very quickly find a lot of unknowing responses.
Yes, a parent is directly responsible for the wellbeing of their child and to be aware of things that can affect them. There is a massive information gap to be considered though here, and as others even pointed out, someone who isn't in the know about gaming in general isn't going to necessarily even be aware there is a potential problem.
To try and take one's personal knowledge and perspective and transpose that onto others to assume culpability, is itself a logical fallacy. Projection makes for bad assumptions.
Though this does bring up a separate issue to note, being obfuscation of information and the issue of just how clear these issue are or aren't from an outside perspective.
A ton more social education of exploitative practices needs to be done beyond the sphere of gaming-specific media before you can expect a random laymen to be conscious of such.
Being meaningless in terms of the whole doesn't prevent the posting of a small number of extreme cases as evidence of unfathomable peril. I don't see why any responses to his query need be of a higher standard or great in quantity to draw similarly sweeping conclusions as equally meaningful.
But sure... we can put up a post buried in a random MMORPG.COM thread and after 5 hours of no responses say they are both basically equal.
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
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon