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?!
Look at it this way.
If I want to shoot myself in the foot, what right do you have to 'help me' by preventing me from doing so despite me telling you directly to your face 'I am happy, I am well, I just want to shoot my foot'
You dont have the right to tell someone that they cant be foolish with their money with the all deep caring and love for your fellow man. That is wrong, THAT is a problem, THAT is people who are far to controlling over other peoples choices.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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.
Are you unaware that alcohol is already regulated? And even sex faces legal regulations?
Yes, in our country when a company was using something that is used for meds in some of their products, when investigations were done the company was trying to get people hooked to their product by doing that, it wasn't long until regulations come in to ensure companies can't do that anymore. Regulations very much necessary in especially what the companies can or can't do.
Your point seems to be to blame the consumer for their decision-making and not the company to exploit the consumer with predatory behaviors as such.
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?
As to your age rating. It is not illegal to play them. It is illegal to buy unless you are that age. So that a parent can decide. It is a warning on the package. You want a report with facts that desensitization to violence contributes to violent behavior here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4539292/ . Does it mean you are more likely to commit violence as in shooting people no, but it does show signs that people are more willing and less emotionally attached to hurting people in emotional ways and harming people in non-serious ways (think punching and slapping). OK I CAN NOT MAKE PARAGRAPHS. As to dopamine levels...you do realize just winning a game release dopamine. So that would mean we need to ban all games. Techincally there is video game addiction...so maybe some laws need to be made to regulate how long or what types of games people can play.
Most of my co-workers are overweight, they eat fast food every day. I on the other hand eat healthy and take a walk every day at lunch and I am not overweight.
Do I have the moral authority to tell them that they can not go and eat fast food?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Look at it this way.
If I want to shoot myself in the foot, what right do you have to 'help me' by preventing me from doing so despite me telling you directly to your face 'I am happy, I am well, I just want to shoot my foot'
You dont have the right to tell someone that they cant be foolish with their money with the all deep caring and love for your fellow man. That is wrong, THAT is a problem, THAT is people who are far to controlling over other peoples choices.
If you shoot yourself in the foot intentionally, you perhaps will lose your right to have a gun. Maybe you are not mentally balanced to own a gun in the first place, that would be likely checked.
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?
I can accept the idea that it might be predatory, but a lot of things in this world are. I just side on less laws, more education through warnings or other means, and more personal responsibility from people. It a company uses drugs that addict 90% of the people that use it then by all means that is wrong, but gambling addiction is only 2.9% of the population. Is that worth a toe hold law that can be expanded later to "protect" people. Think like this. In the US people were being hit by cars in the street. So men with whistles were stationed at busy intersections to alert and basically shame people that did not look when entering the street. Later a law was made to obey signs and crosswalk lanes. Later governments were worried people would bumping into each other in crosswalks so, and there actually is, laws that say you have to walk on the right side of a crosswalk or you are in violation. Now where I live they are contemplating making it so that only one side gets to cross at a time because the number of people scares politicians that the children will not be able to cross the street in time with people come toward them. Who knows the future. Laws never stop at the simple answer. It always grows and soon your protection is forcing you to stand on a corner in the rain for two light cycles because the government does not think you can cross the street on your own.
Most of my co-workers are overweight, they eat fast food every day. I on the other hand eat healthy and take a walk every day at lunch and I am not overweight.
Do I have the moral authority to tell them that they can not go and eat fast food?
They already do that in my country as well.
Unhealthy food is taxed because it is unhealthy, they will not say "you can't eat that", and when you think of it such regulations are fair: because if you eat unhealthy as we have a public free healthcare it's the public state that will end supporting the possible consequences of your actions.
In another example, there are some oils that not sure if still exist in the US but were banned from the EU because some ingredients that can cause one addiction, if it wasn't that it was because it was cancerous.
Look at it this way.
If I want to shoot myself in the foot, what right do you have to 'help me' by preventing me from doing so despite me telling you directly to your face 'I am happy, I am well, I just want to shoot my foot'
You dont have the right to tell someone that they cant be foolish with their money with the all deep caring and love for your fellow man. That is wrong, THAT is a problem, THAT is people who are far to controlling over other peoples choices.
If you shoot yourself in the foot intentionally, you perhaps will lose your right to have a gun. Maybe you are not mentally balanced to own a gun in the first place, that would be likely checked.
And that yes, are regulations.
WHY?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
its my foot, who are you to say I cant do that with my foot if I tell you directly 'thi9s is what I want to do, I am not mentally ill, I enjoy my life, I am happy, I am going to do it now, back the fuck off' . it doesnt affect you
I eat healthy and exercise, I know that if I didnt exercise and I ate fast food every day that i would die younger, should I FORCE my coworkers to not eat fast food?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
its my foot, who are you to say I cant do that with my foot if I tell you directly 'thi9s is what I want to do, I am not mentally ill, I enjoy my life, I am happy, I am going to do it now, back the fuck off' . it doesnt affect you
I eat healthy and exercise, I know that if I didnt exercise and I ate fast food every day that i would die younger, should I FORCE my coworkers to not eat fast food?
Yes it's your foot. But you live in a society, you can't just do anything you want.
If you intentionally shoot your foot you are likely not mentally stable as well, as you live in society someone is right to ask if you owning a gun wouldn't be a public danger.
Mass shootings the US that were related to one's mental state would show how that regulation needs and is fair to exist.
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.
Are you unaware that alcohol is already regulated? And even sex faces legal regulations?
Yes, in our country when a company was using something that is used for meds in some of their products, when investigations were done the company was trying to get people hooked to their product by doing that, it wasn't long until regulations come in to ensure companies can't do that anymore. Regulations very much necessary in especially what the companies can or can't do.
Your point seems to be to blame the consumer for their decision-making and not the company to exploit the consumer with predatory behaviors as such.
You are exactly right. It is the consumers choice to feed their addictions. There should be a warning and then people make the choice. If I put an addictive chemical in my product then you have no choice cause I have unknowningly gave you a drug. People are responsible for their choices. When faced with a choice of rehab or continues drug use who do you blame? Some of that responsibility is on the person not choosing to stop. Slap a warning on the product and let the person choose.
Most of my co-workers are overweight, they eat fast food every day. I on the other hand eat healthy and take a walk every day at lunch and I am not overweight.
Do I have the moral authority to tell them that they can not go and eat fast food?
They already do that in my country as well.
Unhealthy food is taxed because it is unhealthy, they will not say "you can't eat that", and when you think of it such regulations are fair: because if you eat unhealthy as we have a public free healthcare it's the public state that will end supporting the possible consequences of your actions.
In another example, there are some oils that not sure if still exist in the US but were banned from the EU because some ingredients that can cause one addiction, if it wasn't that it was because it was cancerous.
And when sitting infront of a computer becomes too unhealthy are you willing to have regulations telling taxing you extra for more time playing or possibly having government imposed limits on how long you can use a computer?
Look at it this way.
If I want to shoot myself in the foot, what right do you have to 'help me' by preventing me from doing so despite me telling you directly to your face 'I am happy, I am well, I just want to shoot my foot'
You dont have the right to tell someone that they cant be foolish with their money with the all deep caring and love for your fellow man. That is wrong, THAT is a problem, THAT is people who are far to controlling over other peoples choices.
If you shoot yourself in the foot intentionally, you perhaps will lose your right to have a gun. Maybe you are not mentally balanced to own a gun in the first place, that would be likely checked.
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?!
Look at it this way.
If I want to shoot myself in the foot, what right do you have to 'help me' by preventing me from doing so despite me telling you directly to your face 'I am happy, I am well, I just want to shoot my foot'
You dont have the right to tell someone that they cant be foolish with their money with the all deep caring and love for your fellow man. That is wrong, THAT is a problem, THAT is people who are far to controlling over other peoples choices.
The purchase does not exist in a vacuum. If their falling to predatory monetization schemes means the entire industry moves further towards those schemes, it's in my personal interest to help prevent folks from falling for those schemes. That's self-interest.
That is what's happening in the industry. As more and more predatory schemes go under the radar and accepted, more and more predatory schemes are adopted. It directly affects me.
If my employer's group health insurance stood to increase premiums because my co-workers eat fast food every day and are morbidly obese, you're damn right I would be all for more regulations on their diets if they wished to continue participating in that group plan, because being a healthy adult, I'm subsidizing their poor choices.
Your rights end at your neighbor's doorstep. As soon as your choices begin affecting others, regulations and restrictions do and should apply. In this case, as @Iselin has demonstrated and the general evolution of microtransaction systems have further provided evidence for, the predatory schemes and their success directly affects the direction of the industry as a whole. As such, I do have a vested interest in helping point out and eliminate such predatory schemes.
its my foot, who are you to say I cant do that with my foot if I tell you directly 'thi9s is what I want to do, I am not mentally ill, I enjoy my life, I am happy, I am going to do it now, back the fuck off' . it doesnt affect you
I eat healthy and exercise, I know that if I didnt exercise and I ate fast food every day that i would die younger, should I FORCE my coworkers to not eat fast food?
Yes it's your foot. But you live in a society, you can't just do anything you want.
If you intentionally shoot your foot you are likely not mentally stable as well, as you live in society someone is right to ask if you owning a gun wouldn't be a public danger.
Mass shootings the US that were related to one's mental state would show how that regulation needs and is fair to exist.
EXACTLY.
which is why in general the rule is 'if it does not harm other people, then you have the right to do it'
So again for the billionith time, what people need to do is find out 1. who are buying these lootboxes and 2. are they expressing any grief.
If they are not expressing unhappyness because of lootboxes then I can assure you, your moral authority to force others to do you will because you think they are suffering despite them telling you otherwise will absolutly bite you in your ass.
When you start doing that is the day i force people to not eat fast food, not go to church and greatly defund all sporting funding from schools.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Why is predatory always used in a negative context? I am pretty sure that humans are predators by nature. We have wiped out most species to the extinction or the edge of extinction. It is in our nature. I think that is why we become so easily addicted to violent games and sex. Those are two things we are programmed to enjoy and succeed at. Of course in nature, we wouldn't indulge in these activities as much as we do in a fantasy world. There would be other things to do. I guess everything is OK in moderation. My only reason to try and be healthy is I don't want to be at the mercy of a health industry that cares more about money than anything else. Overall I find living a life of moderation to be a bit dull. Extremes are always more fun due to the emotions they provoke. It just happens that these extreme reactions wear you down over time and cause your body problems. This wouldn't have been an issue in the past as people died more often and at younger ages. Part of the fun of video games is the emotions they provoke. I actually don't find today's games much fun as they don't provoke much emotion in me. They are more about buying some item in the game than anything else. I guess this comes down to what you want out of life. As a kid, you don't really understand these things though and are easily exploited due to ignorance. There isn't really a choice. You just accept the bs you are fed throughout childhood.
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
Well I'm sure the heroin addict is enjoying themselves when they are high too.
Horusra said: People are responsible for their choices. When faced with a choice of rehab or continues drug use who do you blame? Some of that responsibility is on the person not choosing to stop. Slap a warning on the product and let the person choose.
I would wish people would be responsible with their choices, we would live in one entire different world.
But that is not reality, companies will do anything to get money, moral or not, the only frontline of consumer protection, imposing of limits and general balance of society lies in all these regulations.
You see on a local story there's a ton of warnings and info in each product, preventing a product full of sugar to claim it is diet (this happens often btw), lots of things like that, companies would not place those there if they weren't forced to by regulations.
So we may just need to agree to disagree, because I don't think it is reasonable to just "blame the consumer" because they should be capable of decision-making and give a free pass to companies to do want by exploiting such decision-making as they please.
In this specific case, feed one potentially destructive addiction for the sake of profitability.
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?!
Look at it this way.
If I want to shoot myself in the foot, what right do you have to 'help me' by preventing me from doing so despite me telling you directly to your face 'I am happy, I am well, I just want to shoot my foot'
You dont have the right to tell someone that they cant be foolish with their money with the all deep caring and love for your fellow man. That is wrong, THAT is a problem, THAT is people who are far to controlling over other peoples choices.
The purchase does not exist in a vacuum. If their falling to predatory monetization schemes means the entire industry moves further towards those schemes, it's in my personal interest to help prevent folks from falling for those schemes. That's self-interest.
That is what's happening in the industry. As more and more predatory schemes go under the radar and accepted, more and more predatory schemes are adopted. It directly affects me.
If my employer's group health insurance stood to increase premiums because my co-workers eat fast food every day and are morbidly obese, you're damn right I would be all for more regulations on their diets if they wished to continue participating in that group plan, because being a healthy adult, I'm subsidizing their poor choices.
Your rights end at your neighbor's doorstep. As soon as your choices begin affecting others, regulations and restrictions do and should apply. In this case, as @Iselin has demonstrated and the general evolution of microtransaction systems have further provided evidence for, the predatory schemes and their success directly affects the direction of the industry as a whole. As such, I do have a vested interest in helping point out and eliminate such predatory schemes.
Unless you are on a tredmill using the computer your costing others with your higher risks from immobility.....maybe you should be regulated....your rights stop at my doorstep it seems.
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
Well I'm sure the heroin addict is enjoying themselves when they are high too.
well comparing a video game (which is addictive) to heroin aside for the moment, what you are getting at is exactly right.
if the use of heroin is not endangering other people then yes, its being a moral asshole to tell people they cant use it
but you know what else kills? fast food
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?
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
Well I'm sure the heroin addict is enjoying themselves when they are high too.
And if you have ever lived in a dodgy part of town you'd know how these addicts are just hurting themselves and not their families, friends, neighbors, dogs, etc. they even promote tourism. d
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
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
Well I'm sure the heroin addict is enjoying themselves when they are high too.
well comparing a video game (which is addictive) to heroin aside for the moment, what you are getting at is exactly right.
if the use of heroin is not endangering other people then yes, its being a moral asshole to tell people they cant use it
but you know what else kills? fast food
Problem with heroin is that it does effect others unless you going to supply it to them for free. Once addicted to heroin your body can not go without it without other medications. That means to get it you will need the cash to buy it however you can. If you are a long time users you probably do not have a job, so crime is the most likely route or using your body to get it. Those create health and security risks for others. Now as I said you can provide it for free, but then you are forcing others to pay for your habit so that is effecting others also. Marijuana atleast you do not die if you can not get your fix.
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?!
Look at it this way.
If I want to shoot myself in the foot, what right do you have to 'help me' by preventing me from doing so despite me telling you directly to your face 'I am happy, I am well, I just want to shoot my foot'
You dont have the right to tell someone that they cant be foolish with their money with the all deep caring and love for your fellow man. That is wrong, THAT is a problem, THAT is people who are far to controlling over other peoples choices.
The purchase does not exist in a vacuum. If their falling to predatory monetization schemes means the entire industry moves further towards those schemes, it's in my personal interest to help prevent folks from falling for those schemes. That's self-interest.
That is what's happening in the industry. As more and more predatory schemes go under the radar and accepted, more and more predatory schemes are adopted. It directly affects me.
If my employer's group health insurance stood to increase premiums because my co-workers eat fast food every day and are morbidly obese, you're damn right I would be all for more regulations on their diets if they wished to continue participating in that group plan, because being a healthy adult, I'm subsidizing their poor choices.
Your rights end at your neighbor's doorstep. As soon as your choices begin affecting others, regulations and restrictions do and should apply. In this case, as @Iselin has demonstrated and the general evolution of microtransaction systems have further provided evidence for, the predatory schemes and their success directly affects the direction of the industry as a whole. As such, I do have a vested interest in helping point out and eliminate such predatory schemes.
Unless you are on a tredmill using the computer your costing others with your higher risks from immobility.....maybe you should be regulated....your rights stop at my doorstep it seems.
That risk is eliminated by the fact that I exercise 5-6 times a week.
Work environment isn't really an excuse, because simply doing cardio 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week has been shown to significantly blunt the effect of such sedentary work environments.
EDIT- I should say it's also an attempt at deflection. If I didn't set aside appropriate amounts of time to stay active and this caused group health premiums to increase due to my poor health, I absolutely would have the personal responsibility for causing their premiums to increase.
Your actions can have an indirect effect on others, something that's widely recognized. The evolution of microtransactions, lootboxes, and game development has shown that consumers inability to resist or avoid predatory schemes is causing widespread change within the industry. That indirectly affects me, which, again, means there's a vested interest in eliminating those schemes.
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?
I can accept the idea that it might be predatory, but a lot of things in this world are. I just side on less laws, more education through warnings or other means, and more personal responsibility from people. It a company uses drugs that addict 90% of the people that use it then by all means that is wrong, but gambling addiction is only 2.9% of the population. Is that worth a toe hold law that can be expanded later to "protect" people. Think like this. In the US people were being hit by cars in the street. So men with whistles were stationed at busy intersections to alert and basically shame people that did not look when entering the street. Later a law was made to obey signs and crosswalk lanes. Later governments were worried people would bumping into each other in crosswalks so, and there actually is, laws that say you have to walk on the right side of a crosswalk or you are in violation. Now where I live they are contemplating making it so that only one side gets to cross at a time because the number of people scares politicians that the children will not be able to cross the street in time with people come toward them. Who knows the future. Laws never stop at the simple answer. It always grows and soon your protection is forcing you to stand on a corner in the rain for two light cycles because the government does not think you can cross the street on your own.
Your jumping to the other side of the extreme.
Are you advocating that society would of been better off with uncontrolled intersections?
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
Well I'm sure the heroin addict is enjoying themselves when they are high too.
well comparing a video game (which is addictive) to heroin aside for the moment, what you are getting at is exactly right.
if the use of heroin is not endangering other people then yes, its being a moral asshole to tell people they cant use it
but you know what else kills? fast food
One's use of heroin does not endanger other people. The way one gets the money to purchase it might endanger other people and the same can be said with loot boxes.
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?
I've already explained it a few times in this thread, but I know how you can't process information that doesn't agree with you. I'll walk you through the steps:
1) Paying for lootboxes (gambling) is officially recognised as harmful
2) Paying for lootboxes then gets covered by existing gambling regulations via new legislation (at the moment, UK legislation only covers gambling where the return is monetary, so this would just remove the monetary return caveat).
3) Existing gambling regulations already make it an offence for under 18s to participate. This means that all games that include the ability to pay real money for a chance of a reward must adhere to these gambling regulations. This means they would all get an 18 certificate and developers can get prosecuted for allowing minors to participate.
4) Developers then lose a revenue stream - less microtransaction money, but the big loss would come from reduced box sales. Additionally, there is likely to be a big PR nightmare for any dev that continues to include gambling in their games as simply acknowledging the fact that lootboxes are gambling will change the whole public perception.
5) The loss of revenue will prompt developers to change their ways. Paid for lootboxes will get removed, as will any other form of gambling.
6) Developers then have to find new ways to generate money. This is the big unknown - how will they replace it? We could end up with something worse than lootboxes, but the gambling regulations will at least prevent our money being wasted on RNG mechanics. My expectation is half the market will split towards direct P2W cash shop items, the other half will split towards more honest, up front costs for items (e.g. $50 for a mount instead of $5 for a lootbox with a chance for a mount).
So, that is the progression I would like to see this issue take. Step 1 has already happened. Step 2 is what is being debated at the moment, at least in the UK. The debate is being shaped in two primary ways: is it right for the UK government to protect children against this specific harmful activity, and if it is right, what form should the legislation take?
As mentioned, the current legislation only covers gambling where the return is monetary. But, simply removing that caveat is going to be too broad. For example, removing that caveat would mean raffles have to be covered by gambling laws and I can't see any desire for that to happen. So, how do you create legislation that covers this specific type of online gambling in games without making it so narrow that developers can still get around it?
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr80 Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr5X Shaman
Comments
You dont have the right to tell someone that they cant be foolish with their money with the all deep caring and love for your fellow man. That is wrong, THAT is a problem, THAT is people who are far to controlling over other peoples choices.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Yes, in our country when a company was using something that is used for meds in some of their products, when investigations were done the company was trying to get people hooked to their product by doing that, it wasn't long until regulations come in to ensure companies can't do that anymore. Regulations very much necessary in especially what the companies can or can't do.
Your point seems to be to blame the consumer for their decision-making and not the company to exploit the consumer with predatory behaviors as such.
As to your age rating. It is not illegal to play them. It is illegal to buy unless you are that age. So that a parent can decide. It is a warning on the package. You want a report with facts that desensitization to violence contributes to violent behavior here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4539292/ . Does it mean you are more likely to commit violence as in shooting people no, but it does show signs that people are more willing and less emotionally attached to hurting people in emotional ways and harming people in non-serious ways (think punching and slapping). OK I CAN NOT MAKE PARAGRAPHS. As to dopamine levels...you do realize just winning a game release dopamine. So that would mean we need to ban all games. Techincally there is video game addiction...so maybe some laws need to be made to regulate how long or what types of games people can play.
Most of my co-workers are overweight, they eat fast food every day. I on the other hand eat healthy and take a walk every day at lunch and I am not overweight.
Do I have the moral authority to tell them that they can not go and eat fast food?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
And that yes, are regulations.
I can accept the idea that it might be predatory, but a lot of things in this world are. I just side on less laws, more education through warnings or other means, and more personal responsibility from people. It a company uses drugs that addict 90% of the people that use it then by all means that is wrong, but gambling addiction is only 2.9% of the population. Is that worth a toe hold law that can be expanded later to "protect" people. Think like this. In the US people were being hit by cars in the street. So men with whistles were stationed at busy intersections to alert and basically shame people that did not look when entering the street. Later a law was made to obey signs and crosswalk lanes. Later governments were worried people would bumping into each other in crosswalks so, and there actually is, laws that say you have to walk on the right side of a crosswalk or you are in violation. Now where I live they are contemplating making it so that only one side gets to cross at a time because the number of people scares politicians that the children will not be able to cross the street in time with people come toward them. Who knows the future. Laws never stop at the simple answer. It always grows and soon your protection is forcing you to stand on a corner in the rain for two light cycles because the government does not think you can cross the street on your own.
Unhealthy food is taxed because it is unhealthy, they will not say "you can't eat that", and when you think of it such regulations are fair: because if you eat unhealthy as we have a public free healthcare it's the public state that will end supporting the possible consequences of your actions.
In another example, there are some oils that not sure if still exist in the US but were banned from the EU because some ingredients that can cause one addiction, if it wasn't that it was because it was cancerous.
its my foot, who are you to say I cant do that with my foot if I tell you directly 'thi9s is what I want to do, I am not mentally ill, I enjoy my life, I am happy, I am going to do it now, back the fuck off' . it doesnt affect you
I eat healthy and exercise, I know that if I didnt exercise and I ate fast food every day that i would die younger, should I FORCE my coworkers to not eat fast food?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If you intentionally shoot your foot you are likely not mentally stable as well, as you live in society someone is right to ask if you owning a gun wouldn't be a public danger.
Mass shootings the US that were related to one's mental state would show how that regulation needs and is fair to exist.
You are exactly right. It is the consumers choice to feed their addictions. There should be a warning and then people make the choice. If I put an addictive chemical in my product then you have no choice cause I have unknowningly gave you a drug. People are responsible for their choices. When faced with a choice of rehab or continues drug use who do you blame? Some of that responsibility is on the person not choosing to stop. Slap a warning on the product and let the person choose.
And when sitting infront of a computer becomes too unhealthy are you willing to have regulations telling taxing you extra for more time playing or possibly having government imposed limits on how long you can use a computer?
Then take away the gambler's money.
That is what's happening in the industry. As more and more predatory schemes go under the radar and accepted, more and more predatory schemes are adopted. It directly affects me.
If my employer's group health insurance stood to increase premiums because my co-workers eat fast food every day and are morbidly obese, you're damn right I would be all for more regulations on their diets if they wished to continue participating in that group plan, because being a healthy adult, I'm subsidizing their poor choices.
Your rights end at your neighbor's doorstep. As soon as your choices begin affecting others, regulations and restrictions do and should apply. In this case, as @Iselin has demonstrated and the general evolution of microtransaction systems have further provided evidence for, the predatory schemes and their success directly affects the direction of the industry as a whole. As such, I do have a vested interest in helping point out and eliminate such predatory schemes.
which is why in general the rule is 'if it does not harm other people, then you have the right to do it'
So again for the billionith time, what people need to do is find out 1. who are buying these lootboxes and 2. are they expressing any grief.
If they are not expressing unhappyness because of lootboxes then I can assure you, your moral authority to force others to do you will because you think they are suffering despite them telling you otherwise will absolutly bite you in your ass.
When you start doing that is the day i force people to not eat fast food, not go to church and greatly defund all sporting funding from schools.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
But that is not reality, companies will do anything to get money, moral or not, the only frontline of consumer protection, imposing of limits and general balance of society lies in all these regulations.
You see on a local story there's a ton of warnings and info in each product, preventing a product full of sugar to claim it is diet (this happens often btw), lots of things like that, companies would not place those there if they weren't forced to by regulations.
So we may just need to agree to disagree, because I don't think it is reasonable to just "blame the consumer" because they should be capable of decision-making and give a free pass to companies to do want by exploiting such decision-making as they please.
In this specific case, feed one potentially destructive addiction for the sake of profitability.
if the use of heroin is not endangering other people then yes, its being a moral asshole to tell people they cant use it
but you know what else kills? fast food
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
d
Problem with heroin is that it does effect others unless you going to supply it to them for free. Once addicted to heroin your body can not go without it without other medications. That means to get it you will need the cash to buy it however you can. If you are a long time users you probably do not have a job, so crime is the most likely route or using your body to get it. Those create health and security risks for others. Now as I said you can provide it for free, but then you are forcing others to pay for your habit so that is effecting others also. Marijuana atleast you do not die if you can not get your fix.
Work environment isn't really an excuse, because simply doing cardio 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week has been shown to significantly blunt the effect of such sedentary work environments.
EDIT- I should say it's also an attempt at deflection. If I didn't set aside appropriate amounts of time to stay active and this caused group health premiums to increase due to my poor health, I absolutely would have the personal responsibility for causing their premiums to increase.
Your actions can have an indirect effect on others, something that's widely recognized. The evolution of microtransactions, lootboxes, and game development has shown that consumers inability to resist or avoid predatory schemes is causing widespread change within the industry. That indirectly affects me, which, again, means there's a vested interest in eliminating those schemes.
Are you advocating that society would of been better off with uncontrolled intersections?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Mute argument... which was my original point.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
1) Paying for lootboxes (gambling) is officially recognised as harmful
2) Paying for lootboxes then gets covered by existing gambling regulations via new legislation (at the moment, UK legislation only covers gambling where the return is monetary, so this would just remove the monetary return caveat).
3) Existing gambling regulations already make it an offence for under 18s to participate. This means that all games that include the ability to pay real money for a chance of a reward must adhere to these gambling regulations. This means they would all get an 18 certificate and developers can get prosecuted for allowing minors to participate.
4) Developers then lose a revenue stream - less microtransaction money, but the big loss would come from reduced box sales. Additionally, there is likely to be a big PR nightmare for any dev that continues to include gambling in their games as simply acknowledging the fact that lootboxes are gambling will change the whole public perception.
5) The loss of revenue will prompt developers to change their ways. Paid for lootboxes will get removed, as will any other form of gambling.
6) Developers then have to find new ways to generate money. This is the big unknown - how will they replace it? We could end up with something worse than lootboxes, but the gambling regulations will at least prevent our money being wasted on RNG mechanics. My expectation is half the market will split towards direct P2W cash shop items, the other half will split towards more honest, up front costs for items (e.g. $50 for a mount instead of $5 for a lootbox with a chance for a mount).
So, that is the progression I would like to see this issue take. Step 1 has already happened. Step 2 is what is being debated at the moment, at least in the UK. The debate is being shaped in two primary ways: is it right for the UK government to protect children against this specific harmful activity, and if it is right, what form should the legislation take?
As mentioned, the current legislation only covers gambling where the return is monetary. But, simply removing that caveat is going to be too broad. For example, removing that caveat would mean raffles have to be covered by gambling laws and I can't see any desire for that to happen. So, how do you create legislation that covers this specific type of online gambling in games without making it so narrow that developers can still get around it?