Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

OPINION: ESRB's 'Includes Random ltems' Label Solves Nothing

2

Comments

  • tcordstcords Member UncommonPosts: 7




    Acalex said:


    I think loot boxes are fine, as long as there isn't some gameplay advantage to buying them. If people want to blow their money on emotes and skins, that's on them.






    This perspective fails to take into account those who have genuine addiction problems. Loot boxes may be fine for you, but they're not targeting people like you (or me) who know exactly what loot boxes are. They're a gambling mechanic and prey on folks with legitimate addictive issues, in addition to people who don't know better like children and uninformed parents.



    Some people have video game addictions. And alcohol addictions. And exercise addictions. And sex addictions. Should we ban all of those things as well?

    Gdemami
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 17,586
    tcords said:
    It’s amazing how many people are in favor of censorship and control and so few of personal choice and responsibility. If I want to play a game and buy loot boxes, don’t stand in my way. The ESRB is doing exactly what it should be doing, allowing consumers to make informed choices. If consumers choose to ignore them, so be it. Stop trying to control monetization simply because you don’t like it.
    Personal choice in an adult is fine.  A "T" rating means it is deemed acceptable for a 13 year old.   Sorry, but that is just wrong.  We regulate plenty of things to keep them away from minors.    Anything with gambling should be 18 and up.
    Gdemami[Deleted User]IselinTacticalZombehTuor7shadowaffles

    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

  • tcordstcords Member UncommonPosts: 7
    tcords said:
    It’s amazing how many people are in favor of censorship and control and so few of personal choice and responsibility. If I want to play a game and buy loot boxes, don’t stand in my way. The ESRB is doing exactly what it should be doing, allowing consumers to make informed choices. If consumers choose to ignore them, so be it. Stop trying to control monetization simply because you don’t like it.
    Personal choice in an adult is fine.  A "T" rating means it is deemed acceptable for a 13 year old.   Sorry, but that is just wrong.  We regulate plenty of things to keep them away from minors.    Anything with gambling should be 18 and up.
    If it is actually gambling by any legal definition, it will be regulated as such, with the courts having preliminarily determined it not so. How far do you take it? Courts have already upheld that loot dropped from bosses in WoW has monetary value, and because the drop rates are random, and access requires a fee, should we ban anyone under 18 from playing MMOs because raiding could be considered gambling?
    Iselin
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 2,193
    If it would have said (includes gambling) it would have been a bigger deterrent to parents buying the games for their kids.
    Tuor7
  • ShelvinarrShelvinarr Member UncommonPosts: 90
    ESRB rating should include, "Real currency gambling mechanics". Also, isn't gambling illegal for children? AFAIK, most countries don't allow their ten year old, or sixteen year old to engage in gambling. These children wouldn't be allowed into casinos, yet they're allowed into these virtual casinos to spend money for a chance to win NOTHING? Has the world gone insane? These in-app purchases/RMT provide NO product. An aesthetic visual product, but nothing of substance. It's worse than gambling, at least with gambling, you had the chance to win something tangible and worth the entry bet.
    Gdemami
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 17,586
    ESRB rating should include, "Real currency gambling mechanics". Also, isn't gambling illegal for children? AFAIK, most countries don't allow their ten year old, or sixteen year old to engage in gambling. These children wouldn't be allowed into casinos, yet they're allowed into these virtual casinos to spend money for a chance to win NOTHING? Has the world gone insane? These in-app purchases/RMT provide NO product. An aesthetic visual product, but nothing of substance. It's worse than gambling, at least with gambling, you had the chance to win something tangible and worth the entry bet.
    Court rulings have been all over the place. There is a reason that lootboxes were dropped from certain games after all.

    As for no product... it is YOU who must be insane to state that.  Because something is virtual does not mean it is not a product.  That "Blue Sword of Doom" is no less real than the digital copy of the SpiderMan movie you rented on demand.
    Gdemami

    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

  • AlverantAlverant Member RarePosts: 1,347

    DMKano said:

    ESRB solves nothing because



    It's a self-regulating organization designed by the game companies for the benefit of the game companies, not the consumer.

    FIFY
    GdemamiTuor7
  • NyghthowlerNyghthowler Member UncommonPosts: 392

    I was agreeing with alot of your post until you said you want the government involved.

    IMO the last thing the gaming industry and we gamers need is more attention and interference from BIG BROTHER.
  • AlverantAlverant Member RarePosts: 1,347

    Acalex said:

    I think loot boxes are fine, as long as there isn't some gameplay advantage to buying them. If people want to blow their money on emotes and skins, that's on them.


    The "just cosmetics" argument has been invalidated by the fact there's such a thing as peer-pressure. Kids are now using "default" as an insult. The "cosmetic" changes are status symbols and distract from gameplay. It may not give a game mechanic advantage but it gives a social advantage. The whole purpose of loot boxes is to simulate gambling and get the money from gambling without crossing the obsolete legal definition of gambling so they can sell it to kids.
    GdemamiTuor7
  • AlverantAlverant Member RarePosts: 1,347

    I was agreeing with alot of your post until you said you want the government involved.

    IMO the last thing the gaming industry and we gamers need is more attention and interference from BIG BROTHER.
    It's not BIG BROTHER to want BIG BUSINESS to behave ethically. If the government isn't doing it, who will, the companies themselves? What would it take for the video game industry to start acting responsibly?
    Gdemami
  • AcalexAcalex Member UncommonPosts: 73
    edited April 2020
    ESRB rating should include, "Real currency gambling mechanics". Also, isn't gambling illegal for children? AFAIK, most countries don't allow their ten year old, or sixteen year old to engage in gambling. These children wouldn't be allowed into casinos, yet they're allowed into these virtual casinos to spend money for a chance to win NOTHING? Has the world gone insane? These in-app purchases/RMT provide NO product. An aesthetic visual product, but nothing of substance. It's worse than gambling, at least with gambling, you had the chance to win something tangible and worth the entry bet.
    Ever see a crane machine? Essentially child gambling, except you win a silly prize instead of money. And it's probably a legal loophole - there's no chance of actually losing, you will always receive something for your money. Think about pokemon cards or Magic the Gathering. Should we ban those because a kid might get some shitty cards for their 10 bucks?
    Gdemami
  • jaymesbondjaymesbond Member UncommonPosts: 50
    tcords said:
    It’s amazing how many people are in favor of censorship and control and so few of personal choice and responsibility. If I want to play a game and buy loot boxes, don’t stand in my way. The ESRB is doing exactly what it should be doing, allowing consumers to make informed choices. If consumers choose to ignore them, so be it. Stop trying to control monetization simply because you don’t like it.
    There is nothing informed about lootboxes.  A computer algorithm that is basically a black box that no one other than the people directly working on it truly knows anything about it that can be changed at any time with zero notice to the players.  How can the consumer make an informed choice when there is zero transparency, zero oversight, and zero accountability?
    Gdemami
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342
    edited April 2020
    jaymesbond said:
    How can the consumer make an informed choice when there is zero transparency, zero oversight, and zero accountability?
    ....you are clearly informed that the loot box yields rewards based on odds and you either buy it or you don't.

    Whether you know the odds or not does not prevent you from making an informed decision.
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 17,586
    Gdemami said:
    jaymesbond said:
    How can the consumer make an informed choice when there is zero transparency, zero oversight, and zero accountability?
    ....you are clearly informed that the loot box yields rewards based on odds and you either buy it or you don't.

    Whether you know the odds or not does not prevent you from making an informed decision.
    You make no sense.  Of course it makes a difference if the item you want has a 1 in 5 chance or a 1 in 5000000 chance. 

    Tell you what.  Come work for me and I’ll pay you money.  You will find out how much money when you get your first check. That really shouldn’t matter though since you are informed that you will be getting money.


    Tuor7Gdemami

    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

  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 8,164
    Gdemami said:
    jaymesbond said:
    How can the consumer make an informed choice when there is zero transparency, zero oversight, and zero accountability?
    ....you are clearly informed that the loot box yields rewards based on odds and you either buy it or you don't.

    Whether you know the odds or not does not prevent you from making an informed decision.
    You make no sense.  Of course it makes a difference if the item you want has a 1 in 5 chance or a 1 in 5000000 chance. 

    Tell you what.  Come work for me and I’ll pay you money.  You will find out how much money when you get your first check. That really shouldn’t matter though since you are informed that you will be getting money.


    Isn't that how Borderlands 3 paid their developers.
    IselinTuor7[Deleted User]cheyane

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    kitarad said:
    Gdemami said:
    jaymesbond said:
    How can the consumer make an informed choice when there is zero transparency, zero oversight, and zero accountability?
    ....you are clearly informed that the loot box yields rewards based on odds and you either buy it or you don't.

    Whether you know the odds or not does not prevent you from making an informed decision.
    You make no sense.  Of course it makes a difference if the item you want has a 1 in 5 chance or a 1 in 5000000 chance. 

    Tell you what.  Come work for me and I’ll pay you money.  You will find out how much money when you get your first check. That really shouldn’t matter though since you are informed that you will be getting money.


    Isn't that how Borderlands 3 paid their developers.
    Pretty well, yeah.
    "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

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,483
    Iselin said:
    Quizzical said:

    Quizzical said:


    Iselin said:


    Quizzical said:


    Iselin said:
    That's where the "In game purchases" label came from and that is fine as a descriptor. This refinement of adding the parenthetical "includes random items" however is a shit descriptor for the type of in-game purchases that very closely resembles gambling.

    Even calling them "loot boxes" in the first place is a whitewashing of the gambling it really is. So no this is a shit addition to the "in game purchases" warning that is designed to mislead.



    Before the new content descriptor, they had no way to distinguish between loot boxes and the ability to buy an optional subscription or expansion pack.  That's why "in game purchases" was insufficient.

    The fundamental objection to loot boxes is that people pay real money to get random items, is it not?  In game purchases of random items is pretty good for a short description of loot boxes, I think.

    Getting people who are unfamiliar with the mechanic to understand why it is so insidious takes a much longer explanation.  That's probably going to require stories like this one in non-gaming media:

    https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/kendrick-perkins-children-accumulate-16000-of-fortnite-charges-on-his-credit-card/


    But the point is that the ESRB knows what it is even if the parents don't. The ESRB is the ESA with the same board of directors and the CEO of Take Two Interactive as the ESRB chairman last time I looked.

    They know what loot boxes are. They know what they do to addictive personalities including children. They know they work exactly the same way that slot machines work. And they also know that using gambling as a much more explicit and honest descriptor would alarm more parents and result in lower sales. Hence the more sanitized version of "random items."




    Fine then, if you think this is insufficient, then what do you think they should do.  Assuming that you think that there should be a content descriptor for this, exactly what wording would you propose?



    Instead of worrying about wording, eliminate the root cause: get rid of loot boxes
    The ESRB cannot force game developers to do that.  The issue here as I see it is one of what the ESRB should do.
    You really do see them as a separate agency don't you? I don't. These are the developers doing their own labeling. Of course they can force themselves to do away with loot boxes.
    Whether or not they're an independent agency is irrelevant.  If you call a company's marketing department asking for them to add a new feature to the next generation of their product, they can't do it.  You've got the wrong department, even if it's part of the correct company.

    The ESRB does not implement anything in any game.  All that they do is to describe what is there.
  • SandmanjwSandmanjw Member RarePosts: 531
    A very minor step in the right direction.

    The true thing here is that this is making too much money for people to ever really make anyone change what is going on.

    They make so much money of these type things and if they give just 1% in "campaign donations" they can continue to obfuscate and play word games for as long as they like.

    Money talks...it is rarely about what is right or good for the people that are being taken advantage of that matters in the end.

    As long as they, the game companies, do not go too overboard and piss off too many of their core customers, they will continue to ride the money train happily.
    Gdemami
  • sacredfoolsacredfool Member UncommonPosts: 849
    I think it's fine. The wording is a bit vague but then the target demographic has changed significantly since the ratings were introduced. Most parents now who will be concerned with those ratings are 30 and 40 years old who grew up in the 90s or early 2000 when games were already a thing.

    If they care about the ratings they'll also have a smartphone with them and they'll be able to google all the information they need.


    Originally posted by nethaniah

    Seriously Farmville? Yeah I think it's great. In a World where half our population is dying of hunger the more fortunate half is spending their time harvesting food that doesn't exist.


  • bonzoso21bonzoso21 Member UncommonPosts: 380
    I'm not one of the "but my freedoms!" types and I'm usually in favor of actions to protect the vulnerable, but I don't necessarily agree with the fervor over loot boxes. In many things in life, you can't always protect people from themselves, and addictions often fall in that category. Removing in-game gambling mechanics to protect the addicts and uninformed from themselves isn't really different than removing video poker sites or running credit checks on everyone who walks into the casino. At some point, we have to accept that it's up to these people to get a handle on their temptations and it's up to their loved ones to help them through that.

    I have multiple alcoholics in my family and friend groups. I've never had a problem stopping after a couple drinks, but we don't have alcohol at gatherings when those people are around because we care about them and are happy to do our part to support them through their addiction. I wouldn't expect the world to forego alcohol because a family member or friend almost ruined their life over it.

    With kids and parents, information is the key. Every parent has simple tools to control the digital content their kids have access to, and they have the responsibility to keep an eye on what their kids are doing. I don't mean to imply that's an easy thing to do, but no responsible parent should ever get blindsided by a $1000 Fortnite charge.

    As far as this ESRB label is concerned, I wouldn't have a problem with them changing their label to 'includes gambling with real money' or something, but I doubt that it would make any real difference. I think when people see the label, they have an idea what to expect and can make a decision for themselves if they want to support that product or not, same as with the MPAA rating on a film. The alternative to self-regulation is government regulation, and aging lawmakers have repeatedly shown that they view digital entertainment through their hypocritical pearl-clutching, bible-thumping moral lens and would just love to get some control over what we watch and play.

    No thanks.
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,973
    bonzoso21 said:
    With kids and parents, information is the key. Every parent has simple tools to control the digital content their kids have access to, and they have the responsibility to keep an eye on what their kids are doing. I don't mean to imply that's an easy thing to do, but no responsible parent should ever get blindsided by a $1000 Fortnite charge. 
    You've obviously never been parent of a teenager.
    Slapshot1188Gdemami
     
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 17,586
    I think it's fine. The wording is a bit vague but then the target demographic has changed significantly since the ratings were introduced. Most parents now who will be concerned with those ratings are 30 and 40 years old who grew up in the 90s or early 2000 when games were already a thing.

    If they care about the ratings they'll also have a smartphone with them and they'll be able to google all the information they need.
    Except the rating of T means a child can purchase on their own.  13 and up.
    Gdemami

    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

  • bonzoso21bonzoso21 Member UncommonPosts: 380
    edited April 2020
    Vrika said:
    bonzoso21 said:
    With kids and parents, information is the key. Every parent has simple tools to control the digital content their kids have access to, and they have the responsibility to keep an eye on what their kids are doing. I don't mean to imply that's an easy thing to do, but no responsible parent should ever get blindsided by a $1000 Fortnite charge. 
    You've obviously never been parent of a teenager.
    Obviously, but I still think it's hard to find no fault with someone who buys a $300 device thinking it's a toy, saves their credit card information into it and connects it to the internet, and puts it in their kid's room without taking a few minutes to learn about modern parental controls or bothering to come up with a password their kid won't find out. 
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 17,586
    bonzoso21 said:
    Vrika said:
    bonzoso21 said:
    With kids and parents, information is the key. Every parent has simple tools to control the digital content their kids have access to, and they have the responsibility to keep an eye on what their kids are doing. I don't mean to imply that's an easy thing to do, but no responsible parent should ever get blindsided by a $1000 Fortnite charge. 
    You've obviously never been parent of a teenager.
    Obviously, but I still think it's hard to find no fault with someone who buys a $300 device thinking it's a toy, saves their credit card information into it and connects it to the internet, and puts it in their kid's room without taking a few minutes to learn about modern parental controls or bothering to come up with a password their kid won't find out. 
    When I was 16 I had a job and my own money.  Old me could do this all by myself.

    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

  • bonzoso21bonzoso21 Member UncommonPosts: 380
    bonzoso21 said:
    Vrika said:
    bonzoso21 said:
    With kids and parents, information is the key. Every parent has simple tools to control the digital content their kids have access to, and they have the responsibility to keep an eye on what their kids are doing. I don't mean to imply that's an easy thing to do, but no responsible parent should ever get blindsided by a $1000 Fortnite charge. 
    You've obviously never been parent of a teenager.
    Obviously, but I still think it's hard to find no fault with someone who buys a $300 device thinking it's a toy, saves their credit card information into it and connects it to the internet, and puts it in their kid's room without taking a few minutes to learn about modern parental controls or bothering to come up with a password their kid won't find out. 
    When I was 16 I had a job and my own money.  Old me could do this all by myself.

    You don't think allowing a kid to blow their money on something stupid and then be disappointed is a worthwhile lesson for a parent to teach? They can't just buy $1000 worth of Fortnite cosmetics with their part-time cash from mowing lawns or working at Wal-Mart...in-game transactions are dependent on a saved credit card or a gift-card balance. If my kid wanted to buy a $50 xbox giftcard with their cash and use it on microtransactions, I'd let them. If they got a bunch of crap and were pissed off, that's a pretty good teaching moment. A 16-year old can't open a bank account without a parent, so the most they could blow at once is the amount of cash they had on hand during that trip to Best Buy. This is hardly the beginning of a tragic addiction story...it's the same "learn the value of a dollar" lesson that middle-class families have been dealing with for decades. 
    Gdemami
Sign In or Register to comment.