I find it sad these orgs need in writing,steadfast SPECIFIC laws to go after what should be common sense morals. They already have enough rules,they just need to step up and enforce them.Example MISLEADING would fall under the guise of gambling,deceptive gaming/business practices,UNFAIR practices it is already there but now they are going to target specifically loot boxes..sigh.
The problem stems far beyond loot boxes,Kings Isle is running a very heavy gambling cash shop,EVERY single free to play is not only being misleading in using the term FREE but are also full on cash shops.Now obviously SOME purchases are known,you know exactly what you are buying<<<buying,what are we buying?
I look more so at card packs being sold, a multi million dollar industry and you NEVER know what you are buying.Consumers are mislead into think ok a standard rng system that is FAIR,which is far from the truth.Card packs are manipulated,rares are thinned out to force more spending,a LOT more spending.Then they thin out specific rares to give the misleading idea that hey "i got a rare"but not a good one of course.
Then there is even yet more,how are we supposedly BUYING these items in games but NEVER own them,how does that equate to a anything legal?You see they SHOULD be noting that we are just purchasing a license to use and not actually buying the product and taking ownership of it.
Imagine when you buy your car you never own it,you can't sell it,you have to login everyday to get an ignition code to start it and if that manufacturer went under you are not even allowed to drive it anymore.People would be in an uproar,it would never happen,which shows how little legal organizations care about what goes on in gaming circles.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.
When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.
Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.
The average age a kid in the UK gets a smartphone is 10 years old, one in three 5 to 15 year olds have a tablet (higher now as that was 2014).
When I played Watchdogs 2 (PEGI 18), I watched a video review of a dlc from a kid who sounded like he was about ten years old. Good review actually, but he was way too young. Would I have done that when I was his age? Absolutely, if parents don't step in boys will certainly play anything over 18 they can, in fact they will regard it as a badge of honour.
Don't forget the Dutch are waking up to this too, calling loot boxes gambling.
Thanks for raising this one, we may get over regulation, but that's just going to be the price gamblers will have to pay to become gamers again.
We can call it gambling all we want, we can implement as many regulations as we want. Answer me this, though, when it doesn't solve anything, then what? You can outright remove loot boxes, but I'm asserting right here, right now, that it will not stop spending in-game and it won't all of a sudden resolve whatever this gaming disorder is that's been identified. Are you suggesting it will?
I'd go as far as to bet you $50 USD that when this legislation passes, it will not only not slow spending, but spending will actually still remain the same or increase. <-- EDIT the irony here isn't lost on my btw.
I'd bet that having those rules on those Mcdonald's contests etc. hasn't slowed down hamburger sales one bit.
There are good sound reasons for those rules.
I would agree that the rules probably haven't slowed hamburger sales. As far as good, sound reasons for those rules, I'd say that's probably up for debate. That being said, I have, on multiple occasions, got free stuff from beer companies using that "no purchase necessary" rule. So it is a good rule for me because I get free shit and I don't have to drink someone's shitty beer to get it
Would I be an alcoholic if they didn't have that rule in place? Probably not. However, I'm sure it's meant to protect someone who DOES have that impulse control issue and simply MUST have their team's toque.
As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.
When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.
Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.
The average age a kid in the UK gets a smartphone is 10 years old, one in three 5 to 15 year olds have a tablet (higher now as that was 2014).
When I played Watchdogs 2 (PEGI 18), I watched a video review of a dlc from a kid who sounded like he was about ten years old. Good review actually, but he was way too young. Would I have done that when I was his age? Absolutely, if parents don't step in boys will certainly play anything over 18 they can, in fact they will regard it as a badge of honour.
Don't forget the Dutch are waking up to this too, calling loot boxes gambling.
Thanks for raising this one, we may get over regulation, but that's just going to be the price gamblers will have to pay to become gamers again.
We can call it gambling all we want, we can implement as many regulations as we want. Answer me this, though, when it doesn't solve anything, then what? You can outright remove loot boxes, but I'm asserting right here, right now, that it will not stop spending in-game and it won't all of a sudden resolve whatever this gaming disorder is that's been identified. Are you suggesting it will?
I'd go as far as to bet you $50 USD that when this legislation passes, it will not only not slow spending, but spending will actually still remain the same or increase. <-- EDIT the irony here isn't lost on my btw.
I'd bet that having those rules on those Mcdonald's contests etc. hasn't slowed down hamburger sales one bit.
There are good sound reasons for those rules.
I would agree that the rules probably haven't slowed hamburger sales. As far as good, sound reasons for those rules, I'd say that's probably up for debate. That being said, I have, on multiple occasions, got free stuff from beer companies using that "no purchase necessary" rule. So it is a good rule for me because I get free shit and I don't have to drink someone's shitty beer to get it
Would I be an alcoholic if they didn't have that rule in place? Probably not. However, I'm sure it's meant to protect someone who DOES have that impulse control issue and simply MUST have their team's toque.
Or keep someone who was supposed to go and get some burgers for the family from coming home with a bunch of monopoly play pieces and no dinner.
As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.
When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.
Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.
The average age a kid in the UK gets a smartphone is 10 years old, one in three 5 to 15 year olds have a tablet (higher now as that was 2014).
When I played Watchdogs 2 (PEGI 18), I watched a video review of a dlc from a kid who sounded like he was about ten years old. Good review actually, but he was way too young. Would I have done that when I was his age? Absolutely, if parents don't step in boys will certainly play anything over 18 they can, in fact they will regard it as a badge of honour.
Don't forget the Dutch are waking up to this too, calling loot boxes gambling.
Thanks for raising this one, we may get over regulation, but that's just going to be the price gamblers will have to pay to become gamers again.
We can call it gambling all we want, we can implement as many regulations as we want. Answer me this, though, when it doesn't solve anything, then what? You can outright remove loot boxes, but I'm asserting right here, right now, that it will not stop spending in-game and it won't all of a sudden resolve whatever this gaming disorder is that's been identified. Are you suggesting it will?
I'd go as far as to bet you $50 USD that when this legislation passes, it will not only not slow spending, but spending will actually still remain the same or increase. <-- EDIT the irony here isn't lost on my btw.
I'd bet that having those rules on those Mcdonald's contests etc. hasn't slowed down hamburger sales one bit.
There are good sound reasons for those rules.
I would agree that the rules probably haven't slowed hamburger sales. As far as good, sound reasons for those rules, I'd say that's probably up for debate. That being said, I have, on multiple occasions, got free stuff from beer companies using that "no purchase necessary" rule. So it is a good rule for me because I get free shit and I don't have to drink someone's shitty beer to get it
Would I be an alcoholic if they didn't have that rule in place? Probably not. However, I'm sure it's meant to protect someone who DOES have that impulse control issue and simply MUST have their team's toque.
Or keep someone who was supposed to go and get some burgers for the family from coming home with a bunch of monopoly play pieces and no dinner.
You'll even get me to agree with you on that.... with the caveat that with that your regulation didn't actually stop my problem, now I'm onto buying Minecraft blind boxes from toys r us. The less obtuse explanation in the original context of the article is that when you meter one thing (loot boxes) there is, ultimately something that will remain unmetered and, simply put, if I put items for sale in my game that players can buy directly, there isn't a god damn thing the government can do about that.
Again, I'm all for getting rid of loot boxes entirely. It actually doesn't impact me in the least. However, it's not solving the problem, or even addressing it.
We can call it gambling all we want, we can implement as many regulations as we want. Answer me this, though, when it doesn't solve anything, then what? You can outright remove loot boxes...
Often regulation is more about limiting the problem than solving it completely.
We have existing laws about gambling, gun control, alcohol, tobacco, and various other harmful things that have limited the problems somewhat without total bans.
We can call it gambling all we want, we can implement as many regulations as we want. Answer me this, though, when it doesn't solve anything, then what? You can outright remove loot boxes...
Often regulation is more about limiting the problem than solving it completely.
We have existing laws about gambling, gun control, alcohol, tobacco, and various other harmful things that have limited the problems somewhat without total bans.
Your question was answered for me by Vrika. Just to add that no policy, law, measure etc every solves anything 100%. It is a matter of taking steps in the right direction.
As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.
When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.
Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.
The average age a kid in the UK gets a smartphone is 10 years old, one in three 5 to 15 year olds have a tablet (higher now as that was 2014).
When I played Watchdogs 2 (PEGI 18), I watched a video review of a dlc from a kid who sounded like he was about ten years old. Good review actually, but he was way too young. Would I have done that when I was his age? Absolutely, if parents don't step in boys will certainly play anything over 18 they can, in fact they will regard it as a badge of honour.
Don't forget the Dutch are waking up to this too, calling loot boxes gambling.
Thanks for raising this one, we may get over regulation, but that's just going to be the price gamblers will have to pay to become gamers again.
Back in my day we had no problem as young boys picking up copies of Playboy and Penthouse either
Loot boxes aren't flying under the radar anymore. They've garnered a lot of attention lately.
I should say that the sex does not concern me, we got those mags when we were too young and look at the fine upstanding pillars of society we are now.
But gambling for pre-teens could send them down the direction of gambling as a lifestyle.
Besides which, to me it is unethical to put gambling in games. The two are chalk and cheese, we did not play the fruit machines down the arcade unless we wanted to. Why should we have to do so now when we play the Space Invaders of today?
As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.
When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.
Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.
I don't disagree with you that parents have a responsibility to their children, but don't companies have an ethical responsibility to society? I think lootboxes are beyond misleading, they are deceptive. Odds that they don't disclose, like that matters since odds can change at any time without the players knowing.
What we have currently is zero regulation and zero oversight on lootboxes and "microtransactions" and what is the state of gaming? I don't care if legislation "hurts" the companies, I don't own stock in their companies. So what if some MMOs or other online games have to shut down, if they relied so much on gambling that those games have no other means of generating money, maybe those games deserve to shut down. Good riddance.
Maybe the F2P experiment has failed. Instead of creating content that keeps players subscribing, just sell more lootboxes. So what if some players don't like that and leave, just raise the prices. Maybe legislation will force game developers to become more innovative in creating content instead of lazily relying on lootboxes.
Worse case scenario is legislation won't pass or the laws are simply ineffective, all that means is nothing will change. Best case is that it brings attention and awareness to the issue and it forces companies to actually start developing games instead of virtual casinos.
While I agree that kids should be more involved in what their kids are doing and be the primary example to them. This isn't about parents being involved with kids and games. This is about companies using predatory means to fund the game. I don't mind dlc, cosmetics, mounts what not. But when you put a mount in a loot box style system with a 10% chance to drop is insane, when you put mechanics in a game that promote loot boxes to advance, its not right. That has very little to do with parenting. Charging $60+ for a game then X amount to finish the story cause it wasn't complete, X amount to unlock this item if you chances are good + whatever else they come up with is what the issue is.
These mechanics are targeting all, not just children.
As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.
When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.
Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.
The average age a kid in the UK gets a smartphone is 10 years old, one in three 5 to 15 year olds have a tablet (higher now as that was 2014).
When I played Watchdogs 2 (PEGI 18), I watched a video review of a dlc from a kid who sounded like he was about ten years old. Good review actually, but he was way too young. Would I have done that when I was his age? Absolutely, if parents don't step in boys will certainly play anything over 18 they can, in fact they will regard it as a badge of honour.
Don't forget the Dutch are waking up to this too, calling loot boxes gambling.
Thanks for raising this one, we may get over regulation, but that's just going to be the price gamblers will have to pay to become gamers again.
We can call it gambling all we want, we can implement as many regulations as we want. Answer me this, though, when it doesn't solve anything, then what? You can outright remove loot boxes, but I'm asserting right here, right now, that it will not stop spending in-game and it won't all of a sudden resolve whatever this gaming disorder is that's been identified. Are you suggesting it will?
I'd go as far as to bet you $50 USD that when this legislation passes, it will not only not slow spending, but spending will actually still remain the same or increase. <-- EDIT the irony here isn't lost on my btw.
I'd bet that having those rules on those Mcdonald's contests etc. hasn't slowed down hamburger sales one bit.
There are good sound reasons for those rules.
I would agree that the rules probably haven't slowed hamburger sales. As far as good, sound reasons for those rules, I'd say that's probably up for debate. That being said, I have, on multiple occasions, got free stuff from beer companies using that "no purchase necessary" rule. So it is a good rule for me because I get free shit and I don't have to drink someone's shitty beer to get it
Would I be an alcoholic if they didn't have that rule in place? Probably not. However, I'm sure it's meant to protect someone who DOES have that impulse control issue and simply MUST have their team's toque.
Or keep someone who was supposed to go and get some burgers for the family from coming home with a bunch of monopoly play pieces and no dinner.
You'll even get me to agree with you on that.... with the caveat that with that your regulation didn't actually stop my problem, now I'm onto buying Minecraft blind boxes from toys r us. The less obtuse explanation in the original context of the article is that when you meter one thing (loot boxes) there is, ultimately something that will remain unmetered and, simply put, if I put items for sale in my game that players can buy directly, there isn't a god damn thing the government can do about that.
Again, I'm all for getting rid of loot boxes entirely. It actually doesn't impact me in the least. However, it's not solving the problem, or even addressing it.
Are the regulations there to stop me from being dumb and irresponsible? or are the regulations there to limit the amount and extent that someone else can exploit my dumbness and irresponsibility?
You can't stop someone from being dumb and irresponsible, so I'll take it that its the latter.
As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.
When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.
Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.
The average age a kid in the UK gets a smartphone is 10 years old, one in three 5 to 15 year olds have a tablet (higher now as that was 2014).
When I played Watchdogs 2 (PEGI 18), I watched a video review of a dlc from a kid who sounded like he was about ten years old. Good review actually, but he was way too young. Would I have done that when I was his age? Absolutely, if parents don't step in boys will certainly play anything over 18 they can, in fact they will regard it as a badge of honour.
Don't forget the Dutch are waking up to this too, calling loot boxes gambling.
Thanks for raising this one, we may get over regulation, but that's just going to be the price gamblers will have to pay to become gamers again.
We can call it gambling all we want, we can implement as many regulations as we want. Answer me this, though, when it doesn't solve anything, then what? You can outright remove loot boxes, but I'm asserting right here, right now, that it will not stop spending in-game and it won't all of a sudden resolve whatever this gaming disorder is that's been identified. Are you suggesting it will?
I'd go as far as to bet you $50 USD that when this legislation passes, it will not only not slow spending, but spending will actually still remain the same or increase. <-- EDIT the irony here isn't lost on my btw.
I'd bet that having those rules on those Mcdonald's contests etc. hasn't slowed down hamburger sales one bit.
There are good sound reasons for those rules.
I would agree that the rules probably haven't slowed hamburger sales. As far as good, sound reasons for those rules, I'd say that's probably up for debate. That being said, I have, on multiple occasions, got free stuff from beer companies using that "no purchase necessary" rule. So it is a good rule for me because I get free shit and I don't have to drink someone's shitty beer to get it
Would I be an alcoholic if they didn't have that rule in place? Probably not. However, I'm sure it's meant to protect someone who DOES have that impulse control issue and simply MUST have their team's toque.
Or keep someone who was supposed to go and get some burgers for the family from coming home with a bunch of monopoly play pieces and no dinner.
You'll even get me to agree with you on that.... with the caveat that with that your regulation didn't actually stop my problem, now I'm onto buying Minecraft blind boxes from toys r us. The less obtuse explanation in the original context of the article is that when you meter one thing (loot boxes) there is, ultimately something that will remain unmetered and, simply put, if I put items for sale in my game that players can buy directly, there isn't a god damn thing the government can do about that.
Again, I'm all for getting rid of loot boxes entirely. It actually doesn't impact me in the least. However, it's not solving the problem, or even addressing it.
Are the regulations there to stop me from being dumb and irresponsible? or are the regulations there to limit the amount and extent that someone else can exploit my dumbness and irresponsibility?
You can't stop someone from being dumb and irresponsible, so I'll take it that its the latter.
See, this is just the problem. When feel a compulsion, I'm dumb, but if it's a gambling style mechanic, it's the game. Fuck, even the Pres. Said re: this most recent shooting, it's not the guns, it's people who are mentally ill. Yup! And it's the same issue here. I don't see any bills going through for mental health though. Probably because it would bankrupt the government with how bad it is.
I really don't like loot boxes. If a company wants to take the things in a loot box and charge me a fair price for each item, I am fine with that. I then know exactly what I am getting for my money.
As for politicians being stupid, we voted them into office. What does that say about us?
I thought so!
As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.
When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.
Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.
The average age a kid in the UK gets a smartphone is 10 years old, one in three 5 to 15 year olds have a tablet (higher now as that was 2014).
When I played Watchdogs 2 (PEGI 18), I watched a video review of a dlc from a kid who sounded like he was about ten years old. Good review actually, but he was way too young. Would I have done that when I was his age? Absolutely, if parents don't step in boys will certainly play anything over 18 they can, in fact they will regard it as a badge of honour.
Don't forget the Dutch are waking up to this too, calling loot boxes gambling.
Thanks for raising this one, we may get over regulation, but that's just going to be the price gamblers will have to pay to become gamers again.
We can call it gambling all we want, we can implement as many regulations as we want. Answer me this, though, when it doesn't solve anything, then what? You can outright remove loot boxes, but I'm asserting right here, right now, that it will not stop spending in-game and it won't all of a sudden resolve whatever this gaming disorder is that's been identified. Are you suggesting it will?
I'd go as far as to bet you $50 USD that when this legislation passes, it will not only not slow spending, but spending will actually still remain the same or increase. <-- EDIT the irony here isn't lost on my btw.
I'd bet that having those rules on those Mcdonald's contests etc. hasn't slowed down hamburger sales one bit.
There are good sound reasons for those rules.
I would agree that the rules probably haven't slowed hamburger sales. As far as good, sound reasons for those rules, I'd say that's probably up for debate. That being said, I have, on multiple occasions, got free stuff from beer companies using that "no purchase necessary" rule. So it is a good rule for me because I get free shit and I don't have to drink someone's shitty beer to get it
Would I be an alcoholic if they didn't have that rule in place? Probably not. However, I'm sure it's meant to protect someone who DOES have that impulse control issue and simply MUST have their team's toque.
Or keep someone who was supposed to go and get some burgers for the family from coming home with a bunch of monopoly play pieces and no dinner.
You'll even get me to agree with you on that.... with the caveat that with that your regulation didn't actually stop my problem, now I'm onto buying Minecraft blind boxes from toys r us. The less obtuse explanation in the original context of the article is that when you meter one thing (loot boxes) there is, ultimately something that will remain unmetered and, simply put, if I put items for sale in my game that players can buy directly, there isn't a god damn thing the government can do about that.
Again, I'm all for getting rid of loot boxes entirely. It actually doesn't impact me in the least. However, it's not solving the problem, or even addressing it.
Are the regulations there to stop me from being dumb and irresponsible? or are the regulations there to limit the amount and extent that someone else can exploit my dumbness and irresponsibility?
You can't stop someone from being dumb and irresponsible, so I'll take it that its the latter.
See, this is just the problem. When feel a compulsion, I'm dumb, but if it's a gambling style mechanic, it's the game. Fuck, even the Pres. Said re: this most recent shooting, it's not the guns, it's people who are mentally ill. Yup! And it's the same issue here. I don't see any bills going through for mental health though. Probably because it would bankrupt the government with how bad it is.
He's incredibly wrong about the guns. There's ample evidence to support the idea that less guns = less gun homicides.
F2P must die, been saying it for years since it became the new thing. Glad to see it facing controversy, it must die a horrible death and never come back. It's the cancer that tainted this genre and I can't wait for it to go away.
When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.
<snip>
It is possible however for companies to produce advertising that specifically appeals and targets children. So whilst, as you say, it would be difficult maybe impossible to stop children pretending to be older such a regulation would restrict a companies approach.
I am sure you are not suggesting that age restriction on alchohol say are abolished - kids can always order on line after all. Or .... and there is a long list of age prohibited stuff much of which can be by-passed by some children at least.
As I said in yesterdays thread: Regulation is rarely perfect. Regulations could be made to work "better" but - as you also say - at a cost to fundamental freedoms. Imperfect shouldn't be an excuse for doing nothing however. We just have to accept the limitations that result.
F2P must die, been saying it for years since it became the new thing. Glad to see it facing controversy, it must die a horrible death and never come back. It's the cancer that tainted this genre and I can't wait for it to go away.
You realise that cash shops and loot boxes are not limited to f2p?
F2P must die, been saying it for years since it became the new thing. Glad to see it facing controversy, it must die a horrible death and never come back. It's the cancer that tainted this genre and I can't wait for it to go away.
You realise that cash shops and loot boxes are not limited to f2p?
Yeah, B2P and anything using cash shops is all in the same shit. It is all cancer and killed the genre and the momentum it had years ago. Anything but P2P in the mmo space is garbage, spending money on anything that takes away from designing the gameplay of these games is worth nothing and useless to the development. Having designers waste time on designing anything other than more gameplay is adding nothing to the games except to the useless players that need to have that next mount or dress for $50 is helping no one.
F2P must die, been saying it for years since it became the new thing. Glad to see it facing controversy, it must die a horrible death and never come back. It's the cancer that tainted this genre and I can't wait for it to go away.
Every bad cash shop practice we have got has stemmed from the lack of subscription income. But it has gone beyond that, looking for ever bigger profits by any means possible.
As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.
When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.
Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.
The average age a kid in the UK gets a smartphone is 10 years old, one in three 5 to 15 year olds have a tablet (higher now as that was 2014).
When I played Watchdogs 2 (PEGI 18), I watched a video review of a dlc from a kid who sounded like he was about ten years old. Good review actually, but he was way too young. Would I have done that when I was his age? Absolutely, if parents don't step in boys will certainly play anything over 18 they can, in fact they will regard it as a badge of honour.
Don't forget the Dutch are waking up to this too, calling loot boxes gambling.
Thanks for raising this one, we may get over regulation, but that's just going to be the price gamblers will have to pay to become gamers again.
We can call it gambling all we want, we can implement as many regulations as we want. Answer me this, though, when it doesn't solve anything, then what? You can outright remove loot boxes, but I'm asserting right here, right now, that it will not stop spending in-game and it won't all of a sudden resolve whatever this gaming disorder is that's been identified. Are you suggesting it will?
I'd go as far as to bet you $50 USD that when this legislation passes, it will not only not slow spending, but spending will actually still remain the same or increase. <-- EDIT the irony here isn't lost on my btw.
I'd bet that having those rules on those Mcdonald's contests etc. hasn't slowed down hamburger sales one bit.
There are good sound reasons for those rules.
I would agree that the rules probably haven't slowed hamburger sales. As far as good, sound reasons for those rules, I'd say that's probably up for debate. That being said, I have, on multiple occasions, got free stuff from beer companies using that "no purchase necessary" rule. So it is a good rule for me because I get free shit and I don't have to drink someone's shitty beer to get it
Would I be an alcoholic if they didn't have that rule in place? Probably not. However, I'm sure it's meant to protect someone who DOES have that impulse control issue and simply MUST have their team's toque.
Or keep someone who was supposed to go and get some burgers for the family from coming home with a bunch of monopoly play pieces and no dinner.
You'll even get me to agree with you on that.... with the caveat that with that your regulation didn't actually stop my problem, now I'm onto buying Minecraft blind boxes from toys r us. The less obtuse explanation in the original context of the article is that when you meter one thing (loot boxes) there is, ultimately something that will remain unmetered and, simply put, if I put items for sale in my game that players can buy directly, there isn't a god damn thing the government can do about that.
Again, I'm all for getting rid of loot boxes entirely. It actually doesn't impact me in the least. However, it's not solving the problem, or even addressing it.
Are the regulations there to stop me from being dumb and irresponsible? or are the regulations there to limit the amount and extent that someone else can exploit my dumbness and irresponsibility?
You can't stop someone from being dumb and irresponsible, so I'll take it that its the latter.
See, this is just the problem. When feel a compulsion, I'm dumb, but if it's a gambling style mechanic, it's the game. Fuck, even the Pres. Said re: this most recent shooting, it's not the guns, it's people who are mentally ill. Yup! And it's the same issue here. I don't see any bills going through for mental health though. Probably because it would bankrupt the government with how bad it is.
Lower animals are born with all the knowledge they need to survive, everything is preprogrammed, no experiences are necessary . Higher animals are born with very little knowledge, a near empty hard drive, it seems the more intelligent the more empty the hard drive. Everything that the higher animal knows, thinks and does comes from life experience.
I wonder what percentage of people with mental illness are actually born mentally ill?
My grade 7 teacher used to shun the TV, he called it the idiot box. We all laughed at him at the time.
You can't stop someone from being dumb and irresponsible, so I'll take it that its the latter.
See, this is just the problem. When feel a compulsion, I'm dumb, but if it's a gambling style mechanic, it's the game. Fuck, even the Pres. Said re: this most recent shooting, it's not the guns, it's people who are mentally ill. Yup! And it's the same issue here. I don't see any bills going through for mental health though. Probably because it would bankrupt the government with how bad it is.
Lower animals are born with all the knowledge they need to survive, everything is preprogrammed, no experiences are necessary . Higher animals are born with very little knowledge, a near empty hard drive, it seems the more intelligent the more empty the hard drive. Everything that the higher animal knows, thinks and does comes from life experience.
I wonder what percentage of people with mental illness are actually born mentally ill?
My grade 7 teacher used to shun the TV, he called it the idiot box. We all laughed at him at the time.
I don't laugh at him anymore.
That bit I, unfortunately, agree with. I think the vast majority is what I'd dub as "acquired" mental health disorders. That being said, they have genetic markers that show a predisposition to gambling addiction, so maybe I'm completely wrong.
Comments
They already have enough rules,they just need to step up and enforce them.Example MISLEADING would fall under the guise of gambling,deceptive gaming/business practices,UNFAIR practices it is already there but now they are going to target specifically loot boxes..sigh.
The problem stems far beyond loot boxes,Kings Isle is running a very heavy gambling cash shop,EVERY single free to play is not only being misleading in using the term FREE but are also full on cash shops.Now obviously SOME purchases are known,you know exactly what you are buying<<<buying,what are we buying?
I look more so at card packs being sold, a multi million dollar industry and you NEVER know what you are buying.Consumers are mislead into think ok a standard rng system that is FAIR,which is far from the truth.Card packs are manipulated,rares are thinned out to force more spending,a LOT more spending.Then they thin out specific rares to give the misleading idea that hey "i got a rare"but not a good one of course.
Then there is even yet more,how are we supposedly BUYING these items in games but NEVER own them,how does that equate to a anything legal?You see they SHOULD be noting that we are just purchasing a license to use and not actually buying the product and taking ownership of it.
Imagine when you buy your car you never own it,you can't sell it,you have to login everyday to get an ignition code to start it and if that manufacturer went under you are not even allowed to drive it anymore.People would be in an uproar,it would never happen,which shows how little legal organizations care about what goes on in gaming circles.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I would agree that the rules probably haven't slowed hamburger sales. As far as good, sound reasons for those rules, I'd say that's probably up for debate. That being said, I have, on multiple occasions, got free stuff from beer companies using that "no purchase necessary" rule. So it is a good rule for me because I get free shit and I don't have to drink someone's shitty beer to get it
Would I be an alcoholic if they didn't have that rule in place? Probably not. However, I'm sure it's meant to protect someone who DOES have that impulse control issue and simply MUST have their team's toque.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
You'll even get me to agree with you on that.... with the caveat that with that your regulation didn't actually stop my problem, now I'm onto buying Minecraft blind boxes from toys r us. The less obtuse explanation in the original context of the article is that when you meter one thing (loot boxes) there is, ultimately something that will remain unmetered and, simply put, if I put items for sale in my game that players can buy directly, there isn't a god damn thing the government can do about that.
Again, I'm all for getting rid of loot boxes entirely. It actually doesn't impact me in the least. However, it's not solving the problem, or even addressing it.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
We have existing laws about gambling, gun control, alcohol, tobacco, and various other harmful things that have limited the problems somewhat without total bans.
I should say that the sex does not concern me, we got those mags when we were too young and look at the fine upstanding pillars of society we are now.
But gambling for pre-teens could send them down the direction of gambling as a lifestyle.
Besides which, to me it is unethical to put gambling in games. The two are chalk and cheese, we did not play the fruit machines down the arcade unless we wanted to. Why should we have to do so now when we play the Space Invaders of today?
I don't disagree with you that parents have a responsibility to their children, but don't companies have an ethical responsibility to society? I think lootboxes are beyond misleading, they are deceptive. Odds that they don't disclose, like that matters since odds can change at any time without the players knowing.
What we have currently is zero regulation and zero oversight on lootboxes and "microtransactions" and what is the state of gaming? I don't care if legislation "hurts" the companies, I don't own stock in their companies. So what if some MMOs or other online games have to shut down, if they relied so much on gambling that those games have no other means of generating money, maybe those games deserve to shut down. Good riddance.
Maybe the F2P experiment has failed. Instead of creating content that keeps players subscribing, just sell more lootboxes. So what if some players don't like that and leave, just raise the prices. Maybe legislation will force game developers to become more innovative in creating content instead of lazily relying on lootboxes.
Worse case scenario is legislation won't pass or the laws are simply ineffective, all that means is nothing will change. Best case is that it brings attention and awareness to the issue and it forces companies to actually start developing games instead of virtual casinos.
These mechanics are targeting all, not just children.
You can't stop someone from being dumb and irresponsible, so I'll take it that its the latter.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
See, this is just the problem. When feel a compulsion, I'm dumb, but if it's a gambling style mechanic, it's the game. Fuck, even the Pres. Said re: this most recent shooting, it's not the guns, it's people who are mentally ill. Yup! And it's the same issue here. I don't see any bills going through for mental health though. Probably because it would bankrupt the government with how bad it is.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
As for politicians being stupid, we voted them into office. What does that say about us?
I thought so!
Gambling in games and losing my shirt stops me from going to the casino and losing my house.
<snip>
When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.
<snip>
It is possible however for companies to produce advertising that specifically appeals and targets children. So whilst, as you say, it would be difficult maybe impossible to stop children pretending to be older such a regulation would restrict a companies approach.
I am sure you are not suggesting that age restriction on alchohol say are abolished - kids can always order on line after all. Or .... and there is a long list of age prohibited stuff much of which can be by-passed by some children at least.
As I said in yesterdays thread: Regulation is rarely perfect. Regulations could be made to work "better" but - as you also say - at a cost to fundamental freedoms. Imperfect shouldn't be an excuse for doing nothing however. We just have to accept the limitations that result.
Every bad cash shop practice we have got has stemmed from the lack of subscription income. But it has gone beyond that, looking for ever bigger profits by any means possible.
I wonder what percentage of people with mental illness are actually born mentally ill?
My grade 7 teacher used to shun the TV, he called it the idiot box. We all laughed at him at the time.
I don't laugh at him anymore.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
That bit I, unfortunately, agree with. I think the vast majority is what I'd dub as "acquired" mental health disorders. That being said, they have genetic markers that show a predisposition to gambling addiction, so maybe I'm completely wrong.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------