Breathing air alters the way your brain functions.
I'm sorry, but the Looney Tunes didn't turn baby boomers into serial killers, no matter how much scientific evidence they come up with to support it.
And lest we forget, the stores are selling blind boxes to kids... how many of those damn things have they had to buy just to get the one character they are after? Why not just sell them the one they want? Because they make more money the other way! Government allows that. In game antics are no different.
There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money.
any chance we can get away from the 'think about the childern!' debate as a general concept when we are talking about gambling in video games and how they HONESTLY affect you
What people need to do is this:
find out for a FACT who exactly is spending money on these things and do they enjoy it. if you cant find someone in distress over using these lootboxes then its a non-starter.
I have no problem with gambling in video games provided enjoying the game is not tied to the gambling.
This is a "hard one" as some people would say the latest Mordor Shadow of War game requires you to buy things and I don't really find that to be the case. I do believe that for "some" people it does but not for me.
But if I'm playing a game and I have to buy loot boxes just to "get by" then that's an issue.
Toward that end, I have been subbing to Elder Scrolls Online and they give you a certain amount of crowns that one could spend. Sooo, I decided to try some of their crown crates (or whatever they are called).
I have to say I sort of "get it". They make it feel like you are at a Carnival with a carny who is dealing you cards. It was fun in a "gambling way". Now, would I spend extra money on top of the crowns that they give me? No, absolutely not.
the thing is, it should not be legal requirement to make a game that you personally like.
Nor should I be a central authority to dictate what should be in a game for everyone based on what I want.
You need to find out if the people who are spending money on lootboxes like doing so or not, otherwise you are inflicting your taste in games on other people despite them liking it.
I know you enjoy trolling Sean but really, just for once could you actually read what people are saying in their posts?
2) Are you aware that paying money for a chance of a return is gambling, regardless of whether that return is an item or money? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gambling
I know many people, myself included, will be using "the kids" argument as a justification for removing a feature they don't like, but that does not invalidate the argument. For the record, gambling is a problem for adults too, but like most things, once a person turns 18 we turn over responsibility to that person and they can make their own choice whether to engage in a potentially harmful activity.
Now, if you don't think that children require additional protection compared to adults then fine, thats your personal choice and you can dismiss this argument completely. However, that would mean you condone some seriously despicable things, like paedophilia, so hopefully you do agree that children require additional protection.
Hopefully you agree that children require protection against a mechanic that alters the way their brain functions. Repeated gambling alters the brain in the same way that repeated drug use does, so do we really want to support developers who do this?
#3 is a non data driven article...aka fluff piece. #1 depends...general blanket statements to justify a point are dumb.
"depends...general blanket statements to justify a point are dumb."
Do you mean blanket statements like "Free Market" ?
Breathing air alters the way your brain functions.
I'm sorry, but the Looney Tunes didn't turn baby boomers into serial killers, no matter how much scientific evidence they come up with to support it.
And lest we forget, the stores are selling blind boxes to kids... how many of those damn things have they had to buy just to get the one character they are after? Why not just sell them the one they want? Because they make more money the other way! Government allows that. In game antics are no different.
There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money.
Do you think law making is static? do you think laws don't change?
The law books sure haven't gotten thinner over time.
"There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money"
Maybe not, but their are laws that protect you from being preyed upon.
any chance we can get away from the 'think about the childern!' debate as a general concept when we are talking about gambling in video games and how they HONESTLY affect you
What people need to do is this:
find out for a FACT who exactly is spending money on these things and do they enjoy it. if you cant find someone in distress over using these lootboxes then its a non-starter.
I have no problem with gambling in video games provided enjoying the game is not tied to the gambling.
This is a "hard one" as some people would say the latest Mordor Shadow of War game requires you to buy things and I don't really find that to be the case. I do believe that for "some" people it does but not for me.
But if I'm playing a game and I have to buy loot boxes just to "get by" then that's an issue.
Toward that end, I have been subbing to Elder Scrolls Online and they give you a certain amount of crowns that one could spend. Sooo, I decided to try some of their crown crates (or whatever they are called).
I have to say I sort of "get it". They make it feel like you are at a Carnival with a carny who is dealing you cards. It was fun in a "gambling way". Now, would I spend extra money on top of the crowns that they give me? No, absolutely not.
the thing is, it should not be legal requirement to make a game that you personally like.
Nor should I be a central authority to dictate what should be in a game for everyone based on what I want.
You need to find out if the people who are spending money on lootboxes like doing so or not, otherwise you are inflicting your taste in games on other people despite them liking it.
I know you enjoy trolling Sean but really, just for once could you actually read what people are saying in their posts?
2) Are you aware that paying money for a chance of a return is gambling, regardless of whether that return is an item or money? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gambling
I know many people, myself included, will be using "the kids" argument as a justification for removing a feature they don't like, but that does not invalidate the argument. For the record, gambling is a problem for adults too, but like most things, once a person turns 18 we turn over responsibility to that person and they can make their own choice whether to engage in a potentially harmful activity.
Now, if you don't think that children require additional protection compared to adults then fine, thats your personal choice and you can dismiss this argument completely. However, that would mean you condone some seriously despicable things, like paedophilia, so hopefully you do agree that children require additional protection.
Hopefully you agree that children require protection against a mechanic that alters the way their brain functions. Repeated gambling alters the brain in the same way that repeated drug use does, so do we really want to support developers who do this?
#3 is a non data driven article...aka fluff piece. #1 depends...general blanket statements to justify a point are dumb.
"depends...general blanket statements to justify a point are dumb."
Do you mean blanket statements like "Free Market" ?
If you are pointing to another's bad actions to justify another bad action then that is another dumb statement.
any chance we can get away from the 'think about the childern!' debate as a general concept when we are talking about gambling in video games and how they HONESTLY affect you
What people need to do is this:
find out for a FACT who exactly is spending money on these things and do they enjoy it. if you cant find someone in distress over using these lootboxes then its a non-starter.
I have no problem with gambling in video games provided enjoying the game is not tied to the gambling.
This is a "hard one" as some people would say the latest Mordor Shadow of War game requires you to buy things and I don't really find that to be the case. I do believe that for "some" people it does but not for me.
But if I'm playing a game and I have to buy loot boxes just to "get by" then that's an issue.
Toward that end, I have been subbing to Elder Scrolls Online and they give you a certain amount of crowns that one could spend. Sooo, I decided to try some of their crown crates (or whatever they are called).
I have to say I sort of "get it". They make it feel like you are at a Carnival with a carny who is dealing you cards. It was fun in a "gambling way". Now, would I spend extra money on top of the crowns that they give me? No, absolutely not.
the thing is, it should not be legal requirement to make a game that you personally like.
Nor should I be a central authority to dictate what should be in a game for everyone based on what I want.
You need to find out if the people who are spending money on lootboxes like doing so or not, otherwise you are inflicting your taste in games on other people despite them liking it.
I know you enjoy trolling Sean but really, just for once could you actually read what people are saying in their posts?
2) Are you aware that paying money for a chance of a return is gambling, regardless of whether that return is an item or money? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gambling
I know many people, myself included, will be using "the kids" argument as a justification for removing a feature they don't like, but that does not invalidate the argument. For the record, gambling is a problem for adults too, but like most things, once a person turns 18 we turn over responsibility to that person and they can make their own choice whether to engage in a potentially harmful activity.
Now, if you don't think that children require additional protection compared to adults then fine, thats your personal choice and you can dismiss this argument completely. However, that would mean you condone some seriously despicable things, like paedophilia, so hopefully you do agree that children require additional protection.
Hopefully you agree that children require protection against a mechanic that alters the way their brain functions. Repeated gambling alters the brain in the same way that repeated drug use does, so do we really want to support developers who do this?
#3 is a non data driven article...aka fluff piece. #1 depends...general blanket statements to justify a point are dumb.
"depends...general blanket statements to justify a point are dumb."
Do you mean blanket statements like "Free Market" ?
If you are pointing to another's bad actions to justify another bad action then that is another dumb statement.
Do know the difference between a statement and a question?
Breathing air alters the way your brain functions.
I'm sorry, but the Looney Tunes didn't turn baby boomers into serial killers, no matter how much scientific evidence they come up with to support it.
And lest we forget, the stores are selling blind boxes to kids... how many of those damn things have they had to buy just to get the one character they are after? Why not just sell them the one they want? Because they make more money the other way! Government allows that. In game antics are no different.
There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money.
Do you think law making is static? do you think laws don't change?
The law books sure haven't gotten thinner over time.
"There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money"
Maybe not, but their are laws that protect you from being preyed upon.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
Breathing air alters the way your brain functions.
I'm sorry, but the Looney Tunes didn't turn baby boomers into serial killers, no matter how much scientific evidence they come up with to support it.
And lest we forget, the stores are selling blind boxes to kids... how many of those damn things have they had to buy just to get the one character they are after? Why not just sell them the one they want? Because they make more money the other way! Government allows that. In game antics are no different.
There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money.
Do you think law making is static? do you think laws don't change?
The law books sure haven't gotten thinner over time.
"There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money"
Maybe not, but their are laws that protect you from being preyed upon.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
It sure as hell isn't anywhere close to regulating lootboxes in video games.
Breathing air alters the way your brain functions.
I'm sorry, but the Looney Tunes didn't turn baby boomers into serial killers, no matter how much scientific evidence they come up with to support it.
And lest we forget, the stores are selling blind boxes to kids... how many of those damn things have they had to buy just to get the one character they are after? Why not just sell them the one they want? Because they make more money the other way! Government allows that. In game antics are no different.
There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money.
Do you think law making is static? do you think laws don't change?
The law books sure haven't gotten thinner over time.
"There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money"
Maybe not, but their are laws that protect you from being preyed upon.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
There certainly is a line and I don't believe that it is a simple straight one.
When it comes to the debate over loot boxes, many believe them to be predatory. If you hold stock in a company that sells them, you have a conflict of interest, which would invalidate your opinion.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
The moment it's abusive.
What we see here is playing with the gambling factor, that is something proven to lead to addictions is where they need to impose some limits.
Monetization of videogames has been pushing a lot on the "getting inside your head factor", while that is a standard everywhere in many industries it still is regulated on how far can they take it, regulations that haven't catch up with digital gaming yet.
"Update, November 16: In response to the investigation currently underway by Belgian authorities, EA claim Battlefront 2's loot boxes do not constitute gambling."
Breathing air alters the way your brain functions.
I'm sorry, but the Looney Tunes didn't turn baby boomers into serial killers, no matter how much scientific evidence they come up with to support it.
And lest we forget, the stores are selling blind boxes to kids... how many of those damn things have they had to buy just to get the one character they are after? Why not just sell them the one they want? Because they make more money the other way! Government allows that. In game antics are no different.
There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money.
Do you think law making is static? do you think laws don't change?
The law books sure haven't gotten thinner over time.
"There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money"
Maybe not, but their are laws that protect you from being preyed upon.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
It sure as hell isn't anywhere close to regulating lootboxes in video games.
Making sure everyone had their fair share did not look like it would turn into Mao killing millions in China. The point is where is the line. Is it at stopping loots boxes or maybe at stopping violent video games. Maybe it should be the choice of the individual to accept those things or not instead of the government "protecting" people from themselves. Give a warning and let people decide to use or not.
Breathing air alters the way your brain functions.
I'm sorry, but the Looney Tunes didn't turn baby boomers into serial killers, no matter how much scientific evidence they come up with to support it.
And lest we forget, the stores are selling blind boxes to kids... how many of those damn things have they had to buy just to get the one character they are after? Why not just sell them the one they want? Because they make more money the other way! Government allows that. In game antics are no different.
There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money.
Do you think law making is static? do you think laws don't change?
The law books sure haven't gotten thinner over time.
"There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money"
Maybe not, but their are laws that protect you from being preyed upon.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
There certainly is a line and I don't believe that it is a simple straight one.
When it comes to the debate over loot boxes, many believe them to be predatory. If you hold stock in a company that sells them, you have a conflict of interest, which would invalidate your opinion.
IMHO of course.
What if most people have the opinion that violent video games desensitize children to violence and that is considered a bad thing...should be stop those games from being available. While you might believe they are predatory I just do not want the government coming in and deciding to protect me from myself. If the product is found to have harm to others related from my choice to use the product in a meaningful way then we can talk about that, but I do not want the government protecting me from bad choices. As I said above make a warning. Like for cigarettes. Then let people choose.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
The moment it's abusive.
What we see here is playing with the gambling factor, that is something proven to lead to addictions is where they need to impose some limits.
Monetization of videogames has been pushing a lot on the "getting inside your head factor", while that is a standard everywhere in many industries it still is regulated on how far can they take it, regulations that haven't catch up with digital gaming yet.
Violent video games are proven to desensitize people to violence making violent behavior more acceptable. While not a direct cause of it, it is shown to not be great. Now there are studies saying it contributes to autism in those under the age of 8 that play games. Should video games not be banned or limited to those of a certain age and can pass a psych exam.
There are lots of addictions out there we going to regulate them all? Or should the individual actual be responsible for their choices? Cigarettes, over eating, sex, etc...all have addictions should all be banned? Marijuana in smoked form is horrible for you. Are the people fighting to legalize it evil? It is addictive.
Violent video games are proven to desensitize people to violence making violent behavior more acceptable. While not a direct cause of it, it is shown to not be great. Now there are studies saying it contributes to autism in those under the age of 8 that play games. Should video games not be banned or limited to those of a certain age and can pass a psych exam.
There are lots of addictions out there we going to regulate them all? Or should the individual actual be responsible for their choices? Cigarettes, over eating, sex, etc...all have addictions should all be banned? Marijuana in smoked form is horrible for you. Are the people fighting to legalize it evil? It is addictive.
The gambling is not one opinion, it feeds a proven addiction.
Violent games have never been proven to feed violent behavior in a concrete level, influences that happen do are the same levels of TV and Movies that do are also regulated on that aspect. A violent game doesn't compare to a game feeding one addiction to gambling in their loot boxes, for the sakes of making money.
If the regulations weren't in place, companies would use addictive ingredients in their products to get you hooked, you would get hooked to a brand of cookies as you would with cigars or drugs... and not because of the flavor.
Without them, we would have to live our lives as "trust nothing and nobody" because there was nothing to ensure we are not being exploited in some way, turning things into an "everyone by themselves" reality.
any chance we can get away from the 'think about the childern!' debate as a general concept when we are talking about gambling in video games and how they HONESTLY affect you
What people need to do is this:
find out for a FACT who exactly is spending money on these things and do they enjoy it. if you cant find someone in distress over using these lootboxes then its a non-starter.
I have no problem with gambling in video games provided enjoying the game is not tied to the gambling.
This is a "hard one" as some people would say the latest Mordor Shadow of War game requires you to buy things and I don't really find that to be the case. I do believe that for "some" people it does but not for me.
But if I'm playing a game and I have to buy loot boxes just to "get by" then that's an issue.
Toward that end, I have been subbing to Elder Scrolls Online and they give you a certain amount of crowns that one could spend. Sooo, I decided to try some of their crown crates (or whatever they are called).
I have to say I sort of "get it". They make it feel like you are at a Carnival with a carny who is dealing you cards. It was fun in a "gambling way". Now, would I spend extra money on top of the crowns that they give me? No, absolutely not.
the thing is, it should not be legal requirement to make a game that you personally like.
Nor should I be a central authority to dictate what should be in a game for everyone based on what I want.
You need to find out if the people who are spending money on lootboxes like doing so or not, otherwise you are inflicting your taste in games on other people despite them liking it.
I know you enjoy trolling Sean....
just so you know, I dont read past that. so not sure who is going to read your response but its not me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Violent video games are proven to desensitize people to violence making violent behavior more acceptable. While not a direct cause of it, it is shown to not be great. Now there are studies saying it contributes to autism in those under the age of 8 that play games. Should video games not be banned or limited to those of a certain age and can pass a psych exam.
There are lots of addictions out there we going to regulate them all? Or should the individual actual be responsible for their choices? Cigarettes, over eating, sex, etc...all have addictions should all be banned? Marijuana in smoked form is horrible for you. Are the people fighting to legalize it evil? It is addictive.
The gambling is not one opinion, it feeds a proven addiction.
Violent games have never been proven to feed violent behavior in a concrete level, influences that happen do are the same levels of TV and Movies that do are also regulated on that aspect. A violent game doesn't compare to a game feeding one addiction to gambling in their loot boxes, for the sakes of making money.
If the regulations weren't in place, companies would use addictive ingredients in their products to get you hooked, you would get hooked to a brand of cookies as you would with cigars or drugs... and not because of the flavor.
Without them, we would have to live our lives as "trust nothing and nobody" because there was nothing to ensure we are not being exploited in some way, turning things into an "everyone by themselves" reality.
it has NOT been prooven that gambling feeds a 'proven' addiction anymore than anything else that is enjoyable.
people with addictions will seek out anything that is enjoyable and they can become addicted to it.
'Gambling' is about as 'prooven' to be addictive as video games are
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
The moment it's abusive.
What we see here is playing with the gambling factor, that is something proven to lead to addictions is where they need to impose some limits.
Monetization of videogames has been pushing a lot on the "getting inside your head factor", while that is a standard everywhere in many industries it still is regulated on how far can they take it, regulations that haven't catch up with digital gaming yet.
Violent video games are proven to desensitize people to violence making violent behavior more acceptable. While not a direct cause of it, it is shown to not be great. Now there are studies saying it contributes to autism in those under the age of 8 that play games. Should video games not be banned or limited to those of a certain age and can pass a psych exam.
There are lots of addictions out there we going to regulate them all? Or should the individual actual be responsible for their choices? Cigarettes, over eating, sex, etc...all have addictions should all be banned? Marijuana in smoked form is horrible for you. Are the people fighting to legalize it evil? It is addictive.
Violence in video games is already regulated, it is why we have age ratings on games and it is why it is illegal to sell video games to people who don't meet the age requirements.
Also, whilst on-screen violence has been proven to desensitise people to violence, it has been debunked that on-screen violence leads to increase violence in real life. i.e. it has been "proven" that watching violence on-screen does not cause people to be violent in real life.
However, repeated gambling has been proven to change the way our brain works. I mean physically altering the structure and chemical balance of our brains in an entirely negative way. Repeated gambling causes the same changes as repeated drug use!
I don't know how anyone can defend that in general, let alone in video games that children have access to! Do we really want to breed a new generation of gamers with fucked up dopamine levels? Do we really want to alter their brains so they have more addictive personalities?
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr80 Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr5X Shaman
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
The moment it's abusive.
What we see here is playing with the gambling factor, that is something proven to lead to addictions is where they need to impose some limits.
Monetization of videogames has been pushing a lot on the "getting inside your head factor", while that is a standard everywhere in many industries it still is regulated on how far can they take it, regulations that haven't catch up with digital gaming yet.
Violent video games are proven to desensitize people to violence making violent behavior more acceptable. While not a direct cause of it, it is shown to not be great. Now there are studies saying it contributes to autism in those under the age of 8 that play games. Should video games not be banned or limited to those of a certain age and can pass a psych exam.
There are lots of addictions out there we going to regulate them all? Or should the individual actual be responsible for their choices? Cigarettes, over eating, sex, etc...all have addictions should all be banned? Marijuana in smoked form is horrible for you. Are the people fighting to legalize it evil? It is addictive.
Violence in video games is already regulated, it is why we have age ratings on games and it is why it is illegal to sell video games to people who don't meet the age requirements.
Also, whilst on-screen violence has been proven to desensitise people to violence, it has been debunked that on-screen violence leads to increase violence in real life. i.e. it has been "proven" that watching violence on-screen does not cause people to be violent in real life.
However, repeated gambling has been proven to change the way our brain works. I mean physically altering the structure and chemical balance of our brains in an entirely negative way. Repeated gambling causes the same changes as repeated drug use!
I don't know how anyone can defend that in general, let alone in video games that children have access to! Do we really want to breed a new generation of gamers with fucked up dopamine levels? Do we really want to alter their brains so they have more addictive personalities?
so what are you saying exactly? That the solution to your grief of lootboxes in video games is to make sure 'the childern' dont play it. How does that help your experience?
The 'think about the children!' is a meme for a reason, people use that excuse to push their moral agenda on everyone.
so...ok fine...people under 15 cant use lootboxes..consider it done.
now what?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Breathing air alters the way your brain functions.
I'm sorry, but the Looney Tunes didn't turn baby boomers into serial killers, no matter how much scientific evidence they come up with to support it.
And lest we forget, the stores are selling blind boxes to kids... how many of those damn things have they had to buy just to get the one character they are after? Why not just sell them the one they want? Because they make more money the other way! Government allows that. In game antics are no different.
There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money.
Do you think law making is static? do you think laws don't change?
The law books sure haven't gotten thinner over time.
"There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money"
Maybe not, but their are laws that protect you from being preyed upon.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
There certainly is a line and I don't believe that it is a simple straight one.
When it comes to the debate over loot boxes, many believe them to be predatory. If you hold stock in a company that sells them, you have a conflict of interest, which would invalidate your opinion.
IMHO of course.
What if most people have the opinion that violent video games desensitize children to violence and that is considered a bad thing...should be stop those games from being available. While you might believe they are predatory I just do not want the government coming in and deciding to protect me from myself. If the product is found to have harm to others related from my choice to use the product in a meaningful way then we can talk about that, but I do not want the government protecting me from bad choices. As I said above make a warning. Like for cigarettes. Then let people choose.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
The moment it's abusive.
What we see here is playing with the gambling factor, that is something proven to lead to addictions is where they need to impose some limits.
Monetization of videogames has been pushing a lot on the "getting inside your head factor", while that is a standard everywhere in many industries it still is regulated on how far can they take it, regulations that haven't catch up with digital gaming yet.
Violent video games are proven to desensitize people to violence making violent behavior more acceptable. While not a direct cause of it, it is shown to not be great. Now there are studies saying it contributes to autism in those under the age of 8 that play games. Should video games not be banned or limited to those of a certain age and can pass a psych exam.
There are lots of addictions out there we going to regulate them all? Or should the individual actual be responsible for their choices? Cigarettes, over eating, sex, etc...all have addictions should all be banned? Marijuana in smoked form is horrible for you. Are the people fighting to legalize it evil? It is addictive.
Good, sound and valid points.
This is where I believe the debate is misconstrued surrounding the loot box and Regulation.
It isn't about controlling your personal liberty as many like to paint the picture.
The debate is whether the business practice is predatory and if so, should restrictions be placed on the practice of *selling* the loot boxes.
So... do you believe that Marijuana should be legalized?
Breathing air alters the way your brain functions.
I'm sorry, but the Looney Tunes didn't turn baby boomers into serial killers, no matter how much scientific evidence they come up with to support it.
And lest we forget, the stores are selling blind boxes to kids... how many of those damn things have they had to buy just to get the one character they are after? Why not just sell them the one they want? Because they make more money the other way! Government allows that. In game antics are no different.
There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money.
Do you think law making is static? do you think laws don't change?
The law books sure haven't gotten thinner over time.
"There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money"
Maybe not, but their are laws that protect you from being preyed upon.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
There certainly is a line and I don't believe that it is a simple straight one.
When it comes to the debate over loot boxes, many believe them to be predatory. If you hold stock in a company that sells them, you have a conflict of interest, which would invalidate your opinion.
IMHO of course.
What if most people have the opinion that violent video games desensitize children to violence and that is considered a bad thing...should be stop those games from being available. While you might believe they are predatory I just do not want the government coming in and deciding to protect me from myself. If the product is found to have harm to others related from my choice to use the product in a meaningful way then we can talk about that, but I do not want the government protecting me from bad choices. As I said above make a warning. Like for cigarettes. Then let people choose.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
The moment it's abusive.
What we see here is playing with the gambling factor, that is something proven to lead to addictions is where they need to impose some limits.
Monetization of videogames has been pushing a lot on the "getting inside your head factor", while that is a standard everywhere in many industries it still is regulated on how far can they take it, regulations that haven't catch up with digital gaming yet.
Violent video games are proven to desensitize people to violence making violent behavior more acceptable. While not a direct cause of it, it is shown to not be great. Now there are studies saying it contributes to autism in those under the age of 8 that play games. Should video games not be banned or limited to those of a certain age and can pass a psych exam.
There are lots of addictions out there we going to regulate them all? Or should the individual actual be responsible for their choices? Cigarettes, over eating, sex, etc...all have addictions should all be banned? Marijuana in smoked form is horrible for you. Are the people fighting to legalize it evil? It is addictive.
Good, sound and valid points.
This is where I believe the debate is misconstrued surrounding the loot box and Regulation.
It isn't about controlling your personal liberty as many like to paint the picture.
The debate is whether the business practice is predatory and if so, should restrictions be placed on the practice of *selling* the loot boxes.
So... do you believe that Marijuana should be legalized?
EXACTLY!
which is why it is IMPERATIVE to find out exactly WHO is buying the lootboxes and are they complaining about it.
if someone is enjoying themselves and it doesnt directly affect anyone else other than them you do not have the moral authority to tell them that they are actually in denial
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
it has NOT been prooven that gambling feeds a 'proven' addiction anymore than anything else that is enjoyable.
people with addictions will seek out anything that is enjoyable and they can become addicted to it.
'Gambling' is about as 'prooven' to be addictive as video games are
This argument is ridiculous.
It's about feeding one destructive addiction, getting addictive to video games is not that, getting addictive to gambling is another story, same with smoking, same with drinking, same with drugs.
Laws and regulations ensure these addictions with negative impact in a person's life or in society in general, are restricted and controlled to some extent.
it has NOT been prooven that gambling feeds a 'proven' addiction anymore than anything else that is enjoyable.
people with addictions will seek out anything that is enjoyable and they can become addicted to it.
'Gambling' is about as 'prooven' to be addictive as video games are
This argument is ridiculous.
It's about feeding one destructive addiction, getting addictive to video games is not that, getting addictive to gambling is another story, same with smoking, same with drinking, same with drugs.
Laws and regulations ensure these addictions with negative impact in a person's life or in society in general, are restricted and controlled to some extent.
no its not.
video games feeds addictive personalities smoking feeds addictive personalities TV feeds addictive personalites
what people do not understand about addiction is that its not external..its INTERNAL. its the person that needs to be helped and removing all sources of domaine will only kill them.
what is ridiculous is this assumption without good evidence that gambling is a special problem in someway, that your gambling experiece in a game is tied to fucking childern having access, that your gambling experience in a game is something you cant have the self displine to avoid.
that is what is ridiculous
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Violent video games are proven to desensitize people to violence making violent behavior more acceptable. While not a direct cause of it, it is shown to not be great. Now there are studies saying it contributes to autism in those under the age of 8 that play games. Should video games not be banned or limited to those of a certain age and can pass a psych exam.
There are lots of addictions out there we going to regulate them all? Or should the individual actual be responsible for their choices? Cigarettes, over eating, sex, etc...all have addictions should all be banned? Marijuana in smoked form is horrible for you. Are the people fighting to legalize it evil? It is addictive.
The gambling is not one opinion, it feeds a proven addiction.
Violent games have never been proven to feed violent behavior in a concrete level, influences that happen do are the same levels of TV and Movies that do are also regulated on that aspect. A violent game doesn't compare to a game feeding one addiction to gambling in their loot boxes, for the sakes of making money.
If the regulations weren't in place, companies would use addictive ingredients in their products to get you hooked, you would get hooked to a brand of cookies as you would with cigars or drugs... and not because of the flavor.
Without them, we would have to live our lives as "trust nothing and nobody" because there was nothing to ensure we are not being exploited in some way, turning things into an "everyone by themselves" reality.
So ban alcohol cause it feeds an addiction. Ban sex because people can become addicted to it and ruin their lives. So you are ok with regulating everything that is addicting? Using an actual chemical that is addictive is different than providing a service that some, a very small percentage of the population 2.9%, can be addicted too. Targeted ads are exploitive. You can not regulate all aspects of human behavior. At some point it is up to the person to harm themselves or not. Just because someone likes to do something and get a positive feeling from it and is sad when they do not do does not mean they are addicted. Otherwise we would have to ban winning cause we are all addicted to winning and that should be stopped.
video games feeds addictive personalities smoking feeds addictive personalities TV feeds addictive personalites
what people do not understand about addiction is that its not external..its INTERNAL. its the person that needs to be helped and removing all sources of domaine will only kill them.
what is ridiculous is this assumption without good evidence that gambling is a special problem in someway, that your gambling experiece in a game is tied to fucking childern having access, that your gambling experience in a game is something you cant have the self displine to avoid.
that is what is ridiculous
Again missing the point.
You are comparing addictions that are not destructive to addictions that are destructive.
Your point is that a gambling addiction is not destructive?
So you are okay with companies exposing kids to gambling for loot in their games? I guess the fault is of the kid if he gets addictive to gamble for loot crates, or maybe blame the parents, everyone but the company who is exploiting that, right?!
Comments
I'm sorry, but the Looney Tunes didn't turn baby boomers into serial killers, no matter how much scientific evidence they come up with to support it.
And lest we forget, the stores are selling blind boxes to kids... how many of those damn things have they had to buy just to get the one character they are after? Why not just sell them the one they want? Because they make more money the other way! Government allows that. In game antics are no different.
There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money.
Do you mean blanket statements like "Free Market" ?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The law books sure haven't gotten thinner over time.
"There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money"
Maybe not, but their are laws that protect you from being preyed upon.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
If you are pointing to another's bad actions to justify another bad action then that is another dumb statement.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
When it comes to the debate over loot boxes, many believe them to be predatory. If you hold stock in a company that sells them, you have a conflict of interest, which would invalidate your opinion.
IMHO of course.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
What we see here is playing with the gambling factor, that is something proven to lead to addictions is where they need to impose some limits.
Monetization of videogames has been pushing a lot on the "getting inside your head factor", while that is a standard everywhere in many industries it still is regulated on how far can they take it, regulations that haven't catch up with digital gaming yet.
Change needs to hit in the laws first gg
Making sure everyone had their fair share did not look like it would turn into Mao killing millions in China. The point is where is the line. Is it at stopping loots boxes or maybe at stopping violent video games. Maybe it should be the choice of the individual to accept those things or not instead of the government "protecting" people from themselves. Give a warning and let people decide to use or not.
What if most people have the opinion that violent video games desensitize children to violence and that is considered a bad thing...should be stop those games from being available. While you might believe they are predatory I just do not want the government coming in and deciding to protect me from myself. If the product is found to have harm to others related from my choice to use the product in a meaningful way then we can talk about that, but I do not want the government protecting me from bad choices. As I said above make a warning. Like for cigarettes. Then let people choose.
Violent video games are proven to desensitize people to violence making violent behavior more acceptable. While not a direct cause of it, it is shown to not be great. Now there are studies saying it contributes to autism in those under the age of 8 that play games. Should video games not be banned or limited to those of a certain age and can pass a psych exam.
There are lots of addictions out there we going to regulate them all? Or should the individual actual be responsible for their choices? Cigarettes, over eating, sex, etc...all have addictions should all be banned? Marijuana in smoked form is horrible for you. Are the people fighting to legalize it evil? It is addictive.
Violent games have never been proven to feed violent behavior in a concrete level, influences that happen do are the same levels of TV and Movies that do are also regulated on that aspect. A violent game doesn't compare to a game feeding one addiction to gambling in their loot boxes, for the sakes of making money.
If the regulations weren't in place, companies would use addictive ingredients in their products to get you hooked, you would get hooked to a brand of cookies as you would with cigars or drugs... and not because of the flavor.
Without them, we would have to live our lives as "trust nothing and nobody" because there was nothing to ensure we are not being exploited in some way, turning things into an "everyone by themselves" reality.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
people with addictions will seek out anything that is enjoyable and they can become addicted to it.
'Gambling' is about as 'prooven' to be addictive as video games are
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Also, whilst on-screen violence has been proven to desensitise people to violence, it has been debunked that on-screen violence leads to increase violence in real life. i.e. it has been "proven" that watching violence on-screen does not cause people to be violent in real life.
However, repeated gambling has been proven to change the way our brain works. I mean physically altering the structure and chemical balance of our brains in an entirely negative way. Repeated gambling causes the same changes as repeated drug use!
I don't know how anyone can defend that in general, let alone in video games that children have access to! Do we really want to breed a new generation of gamers with fucked up dopamine levels? Do we really want to alter their brains so they have more addictive personalities?
The 'think about the children!' is a meme for a reason, people use that excuse to push their moral agenda on everyone.
so...ok fine...people under 15 cant use lootboxes..consider it done.
now what?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This is where I believe the debate is misconstrued surrounding the loot box and Regulation.
It isn't about controlling your personal liberty as many like to paint the picture.
The debate is whether the business practice is predatory and if so, should restrictions be placed on the practice of *selling* the loot boxes.
So... do you believe that Marijuana should be legalized?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
which is why it is IMPERATIVE to find out exactly WHO is buying the lootboxes and are they complaining about it.
if someone is enjoying themselves and it doesnt directly affect anyone else other than them you do not have the moral authority to tell them that they are actually in denial
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's about feeding one destructive addiction, getting addictive to video games is not that, getting addictive to gambling is another story, same with smoking, same with drinking, same with drugs.
Laws and regulations ensure these addictions with negative impact in a person's life or in society in general, are restricted and controlled to some extent.
video games feeds addictive personalities
smoking feeds addictive personalities
TV feeds addictive personalites
what people do not understand about addiction is that its not external..its INTERNAL. its the person that needs to be helped and removing all sources of domaine will only kill them.
what is ridiculous is this assumption without good evidence that gambling is a special problem in someway, that your gambling experiece in a game is tied to fucking childern having access, that your gambling experience in a game is something you cant have the self displine to avoid.
that is what is ridiculous
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
So ban alcohol cause it feeds an addiction. Ban sex because people can become addicted to it and ruin their lives. So you are ok with regulating everything that is addicting? Using an actual chemical that is addictive is different than providing a service that some, a very small percentage of the population 2.9%, can be addicted too. Targeted ads are exploitive. You can not regulate all aspects of human behavior. At some point it is up to the person to harm themselves or not. Just because someone likes to do something and get a positive feeling from it and is sad when they do not do does not mean they are addicted. Otherwise we would have to ban winning cause we are all addicted to winning and that should be stopped.
You are comparing addictions that are not destructive to addictions that are destructive.
Your point is that a gambling addiction is not destructive?
So you are okay with companies exposing kids to gambling for loot in their games? I guess the fault is of the kid if he gets addictive to gamble for loot crates, or maybe blame the parents, everyone but the company who is exploiting that, right?!