It's good news, loot boxes unregulated extravaganza is going to end.
I posted in the other thread, there's also news in the US side against loot boxes:
Who would have imagined, politicians and gamers on the same page. Expect Gdemami cause reasons.
Our tax dollars at work... legislation to ban loot boxes in video games passes while legislation on gun control sits in a filibuster for all eternity.
Laugh at that...
Outlaw guns and make good people who want to defend themselves criminals.
Yeah I am sure all those Assault Rifles in stores are for defense.
That zombie apocalypse though.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Didn't follow the whole thread but you all came a very very long way from discussing lootboxes to weapon laws. What's next ? Existence of alien life forms on earth ?
Yeah I am sure all those Assault Rifles in stores are for defense.
Just to be 100% clear - in US the term "Assault Rifle" has a legal definition which is = full auto, and is different from "assault weapon" which are semi-automatic - and yes the courts and law treat the 2 very differently.
Since you said "Assault Rifle" in US - those are not sold in stores and fall under these 3 rules:
the possessor isn’t a “prohibited person,”
the full-auto machine gun was made before 1986, and
their relevant state law does not ban that the firearm (whether banning machine guns outright or any firearm with certain features).
"prohibeted person"
is a felon
has been convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year in prison (whether or not they were ever sentenced to or served a day in prison)
is under indictment for any crime punishable by more than a year in prison
is a fugitive
is an unlawful user of any controlled substance
has been adjudicated as a mental defective
has been committed to a mental institution
is an illegal alien
has a dishonorable discharge from the military
has renounced their U.S. citizenship
is the subject of a restraining order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner, or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
In most cases you need to have a FFL (Federal Firearms License) to buy a newly made (after 1986) full auto Assault Rifle.
Bottom line - a pre 1986 Assault Rifles start at $14,000 - good luck finding one. To buy new Assault Rifles, unless you are a federal employee, military, SWAT etc.. you will need to get special licensing, and no - you won't be walking down to your local Walmart to pickup a 100% full auto Assault Rifle
I know that mate, it was a joke by Jim Jefferies.
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
Well it was about time. I hope EU and USA both ban Lootboxes, this way the market for such thing will crumble and they will have no other choice but to go back to the Golden Age of Gaming... where lootboxes never existed only games which were worth paying for and playing!
Even if these developments do not remove loot boxes completely I hope this will tone down the continued escalation of these items in games as a means to earn large sums of money from players.
It's good news, loot boxes unregulated extravaganza is going to end.
I posted in the other thread, there's also news in the US side against loot boxes:
Who would have imagined, politicians and gamers on the same page. Expect Gdemami cause reasons.
Our tax dollars at work... legislation to ban loot boxes in video games passes while legislation on gun control sits in a filibuster for all eternity.
Laugh at that...
I'd rather laugh at you, and your liberal foolishness. It is amazing how many of you are out there. Gun control is a crime against humanity imo. Everyone's heard it before but the liberals are doing a good job brainwashing the stupid, so might as well say it again.
Outlaw guns and make good people who want to defend themselves criminals. Criminals either still get guns illegally because thats what they do, or they find any number of easy ways to continue killing people, while facing less risk of someone being able to stop them. Drive a car into a crowd as is popular nowadays. Go crazy with a machete, nobody can stop you unless they get lucky with a good size rock.
Punish the idiots that can't keep their guns from their kids, but not law abiding citizens.
What you guys need to do, is figure out why you all want to kill each other and then make the change.
What people need to do is accept that gun controls don't work, in so called 'gun free zones' you are more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in those places where there aren't restrictions, this is a fact, gun controls don't affect criminals it only affects those who abide by the law and it takes away peoples ability to defend themselves. And as for the comment about figuring out why people want to kill each other and making a change based on that, well, since most people of colour are shot dead by other people of colour, are you suggesting that people of colour should not be allowed to own guns? but of course, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
Yeah I am sure all those Assault Rifles in stores are for defense.
Just to be 100% clear - in US the term "Assault Rifle" has a legal definition which is = full auto, and is different from "assault weapon" which are semi-automatic - and yes the courts and law treat the 2 very differently.
Since you said "Assault Rifle" in US - those are not sold in stores and fall under these 3 rules:
the possessor isn’t a “prohibited person,”
the full-auto machine gun was made before 1986, and
their relevant state law does not ban that the firearm (whether banning machine guns outright or any firearm with certain features).
"prohibeted person"
is a felon
has been convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year in prison (whether or not they were ever sentenced to or served a day in prison)
is under indictment for any crime punishable by more than a year in prison
is a fugitive
is an unlawful user of any controlled substance
has been adjudicated as a mental defective
has been committed to a mental institution
is an illegal alien
has a dishonorable discharge from the military
has renounced their U.S. citizenship
is the subject of a restraining order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner, or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
In most cases you need to have a FFL (Federal Firearms License) to buy a newly made (after 1986) full auto Assault Rifle.
Bottom line - a pre 1986 Assault Rifles start at $14,000 - good luck finding one. To buy new Assault Rifles, unless you are a federal employee, military, SWAT etc.. you will need to get special licensing, and no - you won't be walking down to your local Walmart to pickup a 100% full auto Assault Rifle
I know that mate, it was a joke by Jim Jefferies.
I think part of the problem there though is that people think that AR 15 is an Assault Rifle, when the AR just means its made by ARmalite, or something like that, they are just sporting rifles and not something you see troops using on the battlefield.
Yeah I am sure all those Assault Rifles in stores are for defense.
Just to be 100% clear - in US the term "Assault Rifle" has a legal definition which is = full auto, and is different from "assault weapon" which are semi-automatic - and yes the courts and law treat the 2 very differently.
Since you said "Assault Rifle" in US - those are not sold in stores and fall under these 3 rules:
the possessor isn’t a “prohibited person,”
the full-auto machine gun was made before 1986, and
their relevant state law does not ban that the firearm (whether banning machine guns outright or any firearm with certain features).
"prohibeted person"
is a felon
has been convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year in prison (whether or not they were ever sentenced to or served a day in prison)
is under indictment for any crime punishable by more than a year in prison
is a fugitive
is an unlawful user of any controlled substance
has been adjudicated as a mental defective
has been committed to a mental institution
is an illegal alien
has a dishonorable discharge from the military
has renounced their U.S. citizenship
is the subject of a restraining order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner, or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
In most cases you need to have a FFL (Federal Firearms License) to buy a newly made (after 1986) full auto Assault Rifle.
Bottom line - a pre 1986 Assault Rifles start at $14,000 - good luck finding one. To buy new Assault Rifles, unless you are a federal employee, military, SWAT etc.. you will need to get special licensing, and no - you won't be walking down to your local Walmart to pickup a 100% full auto Assault Rifle
I know that mate, it was a joke by Jim Jefferies.
I think part of the problem there though is that people think that AR 15 is an Assault Rifle, when the AR just means its made by ARmalite, or something like that, they are just sporting rifles and not something you see troops using on the battlefield.
Mate that's the least of our problems! ))
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
Even if these developments do not remove loot boxes completely I hope this will tone down the continued escalation of these items in games as a means to earn large sums of money from players.
I don't see the items leaving the cash shops any time soon... removing the lootbox just removes the RNG(gambling) side.
I fully expect these companies to just sell the attractive items to larger sums of money directly in the cash shop and possible just make all the junk items they know people don't want, back to being earned in-game.
Im sure they can make laws to remove the gambling from games but i don't see this escalating to forcing publishers to not be able to just sell the items directly to players that they have made the devs create unattainable outside of normal gameplay or massive grinds.
They can sell the items directly as long as they are not P2W if they are purely cosmetic that is fine. If they want to sell an outfit for $100 that is fine at least people are not spending $500 for a chance at it.
It's good news, loot boxes unregulated extravaganza is going to end.
I posted in the other thread, there's also news in the US side against loot boxes:
Who would have imagined, politicians and gamers on the same page. Expect Gdemami cause reasons.
Our tax dollars at work... legislation to ban loot boxes in video games passes while legislation on gun control sits in a filibuster for all eternity.
Laugh at that...
I'd rather laugh at you, and your liberal foolishness. It is amazing how many of you are out there. Gun control is a crime against humanity imo. Everyone's heard it before but the liberals are doing a good job brainwashing the stupid, so might as well say it again.
Outlaw guns and make good people who want to defend themselves criminals. Criminals either still get guns illegally because thats what they do, or they find any number of easy ways to continue killing people, while facing less risk of someone being able to stop them. Drive a car into a crowd as is popular nowadays. Go crazy with a machete, nobody can stop you unless they get lucky with a good size rock.
Punish the idiots that can't keep their guns from their kids, but not law abiding citizens.
What you guys need to do, is figure out why you all want to kill each other and then make the change.
What people need to do is accept that gun controls don't work, in so called 'gun free zones' you are more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in those places where there aren't restrictions, this is a fact, gun controls don't affect criminals it only affects those who abide by the law and it takes away peoples ability to defend themselves. And as for the comment about figuring out why people want to kill each other and making a change based on that, well, since most people of colour are shot dead by other people of colour, are you suggesting that people of colour should not be allowed to own guns? but of course, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
What I meant, is that there are reasons for the high rate of violence. Try to figure out what the causes are and make the changes to help improve the situation.
Yeah I am sure all those Assault Rifles in stores are for defense.
Just to be 100% clear - in US the term "Assault Rifle" has a legal definition which is = full auto, and is different from "assault weapon" which are semi-automatic - and yes the courts and law treat the 2 very differently.
Since you said "Assault Rifle" in US - those are not sold in stores and fall under these 3 rules:
the possessor isn’t a “prohibited person,”
the full-auto machine gun was made before 1986, and
their relevant state law does not ban that the firearm (whether banning machine guns outright or any firearm with certain features).
"prohibeted person"
is a felon
has been convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year in prison (whether or not they were ever sentenced to or served a day in prison)
is under indictment for any crime punishable by more than a year in prison
is a fugitive
is an unlawful user of any controlled substance
has been adjudicated as a mental defective
has been committed to a mental institution
is an illegal alien
has a dishonorable discharge from the military
has renounced their U.S. citizenship
is the subject of a restraining order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner, or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
In most cases you need to have a FFL (Federal Firearms License) to buy a newly made (after 1986) full auto Assault Rifle.
Bottom line - a pre 1986 Assault Rifles start at $14,000 - good luck finding one. To buy new Assault Rifles, unless you are a federal employee, military, SWAT etc.. you will need to get special licensing, and no - you won't be walking down to your local Walmart to pickup a 100% full auto Assault Rifle
I know that mate, it was a joke by Jim Jefferies.
I think part of the problem there though is that people think that AR 15 is an Assault Rifle, when the AR just means its made by ARmalite, or something like that, they are just sporting rifles and not something you see troops using on the battlefield.
Bump stock mods make the idea that you can only buy a "semi-automatic" irrelevant. They enable you to fire comparable amounts of rounds as a fully automatic rifle, and they're perfectly legal. Some of the victims in Las Vegas swore it was multiple shooters due to how many rounds were being fired so rapidly. Yet, it was only one with semi-automatics fitted with bump stock mods.
It also makes Kano's over informative post slightly irrelevant to the crux of the issue, aside from being a really good bit of trivia knowledge.
There's ample statistical evidence to support the idea that, in parts of the country where gun control laws are tighter, deaths from guns are lower. There's also DOJ statistics that show that less than 5% of Americans even attempt (much less SUCCESSFULLY attempt) to defend themselves with firearms when they're a victim of a violent or property crime.
On top of that, the same study shows that millions of guns are stolen from citizens who obtained them legally. Many more guns bought legally fall into the hands of criminals than there are instances of Americans defending themselves from criminals using said guns. Yet, a favorite argument against gun control is that criminals will get the guns anyways. It's a spectacular failing of reason that they cannot acknowledge that a huge portion of guns that "criminals are getting anyways" come from the exact same flow of guns they're trying so hard to defend.
There's a veritable smorgasbord of guns for the taking by criminals being bought legally every year by Americans. And take they do. But if we cut off that flow, then they'll be the only ones attaining guns?? It doesn't add up.
What you guys need to do, is figure out why you all want to kill each other and then make the change.
What people need to do is accept that gun controls don't work, in so called 'gun free zones' you are more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in those places where there aren't restrictions, this is a fact, gun controls don't affect criminals it only affects those who abide by the law and it takes away peoples ability to defend themselves. And as for the comment about figuring out why people want to kill each other and making a change based on that, well, since most people of colour are shot dead by other people of colour, are you suggesting that people of colour should not be allowed to own guns? but of course, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
What I meant, is that there are reasons for the high rate of violence. Try to figure out what the causes are and make the changes to help improve the situation.
I'll pile onto you post here and say that there are differences between Canada and the US. One of these differences is guns like assault rifles. I still haven't heard a great explanation from people in favor of these things. Generally speaking people are correct, people do kill people, but with certain types of weapons, the government helps people be waaaaaay too efficient at doing that. Please! Tell me how you need an assault rifle to defend yourself. I didn't know that the US was in civil war... yet.
What you guys need to do, is figure out why you all want to kill each other and then make the change.
What people need to do is accept that gun controls don't work, in so called 'gun free zones' you are more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in those places where there aren't restrictions, this is a fact, gun controls don't affect criminals it only affects those who abide by the law and it takes away peoples ability to defend themselves. And as for the comment about figuring out why people want to kill each other and making a change based on that, well, since most people of colour are shot dead by other people of colour, are you suggesting that people of colour should not be allowed to own guns? but of course, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
What I meant, is that there are reasons for the high rate of violence. Try to figure out what the causes are and make the changes to help improve the situation.
I'll pile onto you post here and say that there are differences between Canada and the US. One of these differences is guns like assault rifles. I still haven't heard a great explanation from people in favor of these things. Generally speaking people are correct, people do kill people, but with certain types of weapons, the government helps people be waaaaaay too efficient at doing that. Please! Tell me how you need an assault rifle to defend yourself. I didn't know that the US was in civil war... yet.
Even if America falls into a civil war, it will quickly be won by whatever side the military falls on.
Even an assault rifle won't help much when a Bradley IFV rolls up your driveway.
What you guys need to do, is figure out why you all want to kill each other and then make the change.
What people need to do is accept that gun controls don't work, in so called 'gun free zones' you are more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in those places where there aren't restrictions, this is a fact, gun controls don't affect criminals it only affects those who abide by the law and it takes away peoples ability to defend themselves. And as for the comment about figuring out why people want to kill each other and making a change based on that, well, since most people of colour are shot dead by other people of colour, are you suggesting that people of colour should not be allowed to own guns? but of course, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
What I meant, is that there are reasons for the high rate of violence. Try to figure out what the causes are and make the changes to help improve the situation.
I'll pile onto you post here and say that there are differences between Canada and the US. One of these differences is guns like assault rifles. I still haven't heard a great explanation from people in favor of these things. Generally speaking people are correct, people do kill people, but with certain types of weapons, the government helps people be waaaaaay too efficient at doing that. Please! Tell me how you need an assault rifle to defend yourself. I didn't know that the US was in civil war... yet.
Did I say that you needed an assault rifle to defend yourself?
I don't see the items leaving the cash shops any time soon... removing the lootbox just removes the RNG(gambling) side.
I fully expect these companies to just sell the attractive items to larger sums of money directly in the cash shop and possible just make all the junk items they know people don't want, back to being earned in-game.
Im sure they can make laws to remove the gambling from games but i don't see this escalating to forcing publishers to not be able to just sell the items directly to players that they have made the devs create unattainable outside of normal gameplay or massive grinds.
No but people at least get what they pay for that way. Otherwise they put in a few OP items with low chanse and can sell junk for loads of cash. It still isn't good but it is better at least-
I don't see the items leaving the cash shops any time soon... removing the lootbox just removes the RNG(gambling) side.
I fully expect these companies to just sell the attractive items to larger sums of money directly in the cash shop and possible just make all the junk items they know people don't want, back to being earned in-game.
Im sure they can make laws to remove the gambling from games but i don't see this escalating to forcing publishers to not be able to just sell the items directly to players that they have made the devs create unattainable outside of normal gameplay or massive grinds.
No but people at least get what they pay for that way. Otherwise they put in a few OP items with low chanse and can sell junk for loads of cash. It still isn't good but it is better at least-
It doesn't take the RNG cash gates out of gaming either. Removing loot crates only removes one aspect of money for RNG. Raid locks are another form. You pay x dollars per month for a weekly spin of the boss loot RNG wheel. Instead of just 4 times per month you could buy tokens that let you roll the boss loot wheel extra times.
Even with 4 chances a month (raid locks once per week) there is still no guarantee you'll get the boss loot crate item you want. It's RNG for money. And before people play the "but you're playing the game card", that's irrelevant especially in court. It's RNG for money just like loot crates. There is a lot of RNG for money in gaming and it all should fall under this scrutiny.
Agreed
The only thing I'll say is:
The subscription method you can only be taken for $15 a month.
The loot box method you can only be taken for ??? a month.
What you guys need to do, is figure out why you all want to kill each other and then make the change.
What people need to do is accept that gun controls don't work, in so called 'gun free zones' you are more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in those places where there aren't restrictions, this is a fact, gun controls don't affect criminals it only affects those who abide by the law and it takes away peoples ability to defend themselves. And as for the comment about figuring out why people want to kill each other and making a change based on that, well, since most people of colour are shot dead by other people of colour, are you suggesting that people of colour should not be allowed to own guns? but of course, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
What I meant, is that there are reasons for the high rate of violence. Try to figure out what the causes are and make the changes to help improve the situation.
I'll pile onto you post here and say that there are differences between Canada and the US. One of these differences is guns like assault rifles. I still haven't heard a great explanation from people in favor of these things. Generally speaking people are correct, people do kill people, but with certain types of weapons, the government helps people be waaaaaay too efficient at doing that. Please! Tell me how you need an assault rifle to defend yourself. I didn't know that the US was in civil war... yet.
Did I say that you needed an assault rifle to defend yourself?
No, so why are they needed? So let's get rid of those. Anything semi-automatic or full-auto should be outlawed and the price for violation is death. So the cost is severe enough to outweigh the benefit of even criminals possessing it. I mean we need to think about the children, right?
I don't see the items leaving the cash shops any time soon... removing the lootbox just removes the RNG(gambling) side.
I fully expect these companies to just sell the attractive items to larger sums of money directly in the cash shop and possible just make all the junk items they know people don't want, back to being earned in-game.
Im sure they can make laws to remove the gambling from games but i don't see this escalating to forcing publishers to not be able to just sell the items directly to players that they have made the devs create unattainable outside of normal gameplay or massive grinds.
No but people at least get what they pay for that way. Otherwise they put in a few OP items with low chanse and can sell junk for loads of cash. It still isn't good but it is better at least-
It doesn't take the RNG cash gates out of gaming either. Removing loot crates only removes one aspect of money for RNG. Raid locks are another form. You pay x dollars per month for a weekly spin of the boss loot RNG wheel. Instead of just 4 times per month you could buy tokens that let you roll the boss loot wheel extra times.
Even with 4 chances a month (raid locks once per week) there is still no guarantee you'll get the boss loot crate item you want. It's RNG for money. And before people play the "but you're playing the game card", that's irrelevant especially in court. It's RNG for money just like loot crates. There is a lot of RNG for money in gaming and it all should fall under this scrutiny.
I've never been a fan of raid locks. Always seemed an arbitrary system to slow progression.
That doesn't change the underlying argument you try to dismiss though. The idea that you pay for a set amount of time to play the game isn't the issue; an asinine raid progression throttling system is.
What you guys need to do, is figure out why you all want to kill each other and then make the change.
What people need to do is accept that gun controls don't work, in so called 'gun free zones' you are more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in those places where there aren't restrictions, this is a fact, gun controls don't affect criminals it only affects those who abide by the law and it takes away peoples ability to defend themselves. And as for the comment about figuring out why people want to kill each other and making a change based on that, well, since most people of colour are shot dead by other people of colour, are you suggesting that people of colour should not be allowed to own guns? but of course, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
What I meant, is that there are reasons for the high rate of violence. Try to figure out what the causes are and make the changes to help improve the situation.
I'll pile onto you post here and say that there are differences between Canada and the US. One of these differences is guns like assault rifles. I still haven't heard a great explanation from people in favor of these things. Generally speaking people are correct, people do kill people, but with certain types of weapons, the government helps people be waaaaaay too efficient at doing that. Please! Tell me how you need an assault rifle to defend yourself. I didn't know that the US was in civil war... yet.
Did I say that you needed an assault rifle to defend yourself?
No, so why are they needed? So let's get rid of those. Anything semi-automatic or full-auto should be outlawed and the price for violation is death. So the cost is severe enough to outweigh the benefit of even criminals possessing it. I mean we need to think about the children, right?
Your goddamn right we need to think about the children.
So the sentence for an assault rifle = death
And the sentence for pedophilia = ?
I had a conversation with my 19 year old son this morning about loot boxes and Battlefront 2. The first thing that came out of his mouth was the gambling and all the kids that play these games.
I don't see the items leaving the cash shops any time soon... removing the lootbox just removes the RNG(gambling) side.
I fully expect these companies to just sell the attractive items to larger sums of money directly in the cash shop and possible just make all the junk items they know people don't want, back to being earned in-game.
Im sure they can make laws to remove the gambling from games but i don't see this escalating to forcing publishers to not be able to just sell the items directly to players that they have made the devs create unattainable outside of normal gameplay or massive grinds.
No but people at least get what they pay for that way. Otherwise they put in a few OP items with low chanse and can sell junk for loads of cash. It still isn't good but it is better at least-
It doesn't take the RNG cash gates out of gaming either. Removing loot crates only removes one aspect of money for RNG. Raid locks are another form. You pay x dollars per month for a weekly spin of the boss loot RNG wheel. Instead of just 4 times per month you could buy tokens that let you roll the boss loot wheel extra times.
Even with 4 chances a month (raid locks once per week) there is still no guarantee you'll get the boss loot crate item you want. It's RNG for money. And before people play the "but you're playing the game card", that's irrelevant especially in court. It's RNG for money just like loot crates. There is a lot of RNG for money in gaming and it all should fall under this scrutiny.
Agreed
The only thing I'll say is:
The subscription method you can only be taken for $15 a month.
The loot box method you can only be taken for ??? a month.
Kyleran has had 6 EVE accounts at one point so that can get multiplied under the right circumstances. It wasn't uncommon in older games to have 2 accounts. Six was a lot, but two not so strange.
It doesn't matter that loot crates have no ceiling because the sub has a floor. So they combine the two like in ESO. Lock some things behind the sub so anyone playing the full game (crafting) has to pay a sub or spend a lot in the cash shop unlocking storage, but really the sub is the only way it works right with the prolific amount of "material" they have for crafting.
This is how games like ESO, TOR, FF14, WoW and such get around sub only revenues. They leverage multiple aspects of the game through diverse monetization. So the sub is required, but so are the loot crates, and the dlc/box fees otherwise you'll fall behind the group and be irrelevant. So studios/pubs use a multipoint predatory practice to ensure minimum revenues and then offer an unlimited ceiling of spending.
Every aspect of game design is built around this, even without loot crates. Loot crates were just a simple addition of moving boss and mob loot tables into a clicky that can be purchased in the store. It's not different than farming bosses or mobs, except it skips the gamification part.
People might want to justify the gamification but that is actually the most predatory aspect of online gaming. A loot crate is obvious in its goal. Paying to access mobs and bosses in a "gamey" way to get the same thing just hides that slot machine mechanic and it is much easier to draw people in, especially impressionable children, with an amusement park theme ride while grabbing their monies.
This is why I rail against progression monetization. In some ways it's always been with us since D&D and TSR selling modules. But in the eighties and nineties it was much more packaged as a whole so you were paying for a "unit of entertainment" that required no further purchases. It wasn't until Prodigy, Sierra Online, and AoL charging dollars per minute for online amusement worlds that the predatory monetization really kicked in. Before that not so much with regards to gaming and computer gaming.
If loot crates are the only thing addressed here the root cause and point will have been missed. The only thing that will have been accomplished is the goalposts being moved. Sorry so long winded.
And there is the Torval that I know
Gaming is a very powerful medium. Whether we want to accept it or not, it does have addictive attributes.
Gaming companies are unable or unwilling to regulate themselves.
What you guys need to do, is figure out why you all want to kill each other and then make the change.
What people need to do is accept that gun controls don't work, in so called 'gun free zones' you are more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in those places where there aren't restrictions, this is a fact, gun controls don't affect criminals it only affects those who abide by the law and it takes away peoples ability to defend themselves. And as for the comment about figuring out why people want to kill each other and making a change based on that, well, since most people of colour are shot dead by other people of colour, are you suggesting that people of colour should not be allowed to own guns? but of course, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
What I meant, is that there are reasons for the high rate of violence. Try to figure out what the causes are and make the changes to help improve the situation.
I'll pile onto you post here and say that there are differences between Canada and the US. One of these differences is guns like assault rifles. I still haven't heard a great explanation from people in favor of these things. Generally speaking people are correct, people do kill people, but with certain types of weapons, the government helps people be waaaaaay too efficient at doing that. Please! Tell me how you need an assault rifle to defend yourself. I didn't know that the US was in civil war... yet.
Did I say that you needed an assault rifle to defend yourself?
No, so why are they needed? So let's get rid of those. Anything semi-automatic or full-auto should be outlawed and the price for violation is death. So the cost is severe enough to outweigh the benefit of even criminals possessing it. I mean we need to think about the children, right?
Your goddamn right we need to think about the children.
So the sentence for an assault rifle = death
And the sentence for pedophilia = ?
I had a conversation with my 19 year old son this morning about loot boxes and Battlefront 2. The first thing that came out of his mouth was the gambling and all the kids that play these games.
When they make laws where the death penalty is enforced for both assault rifle possession and also pedophilia, then I'll support regulating loot boxes. Right now, though, it's a waste of resources. I know zero children with credit cards, so the problem is limited based on their access to funds to actually have that problem manifest itself.
Well-written Torval, but I still take issue with the idea that you have an issue with "gamification". The game portion is the entire point of the product: an enjoyable way to spend time. There's a large difference between charging for access to the game (the entire point of the product) and charging for RNG that skips the game experience itself (again, the entire point of the product). It's a significant difference, and you seem to down play it constantly. The deliberate and direct taxing of the RNG roll while removing the entire "game experience" is the crux of the issue. You pay for game time to play the game, not to simply roll a loot drop die at the end of the boss. The experience of leveling and the boss fight is what you're paying for, and is apropos to the nature of the product. Paying for a loot drop die roll directly skips the nature in the interest of enabling the producer to rapidly tax the players for each individual roll in a way that's deliberately predatory.
No argument regarding the use of subs plus a cash shop. It's going far beyond the taxing of game time. Alas, the idea that you will ever force or persuade microtransactions as a whole out of the industry is really fantasy at this point. It's an unrealistic goal. Attempting to rail against that enemy is banging your head against a wall of adamantium.
Gaming is a very powerful medium. Whether we want to accept it or not, it does have addictive attributes.
Gaming companies are unable or unwilling to regulate themselves.
Now it I believe it's too late for them to do so.
Anything that effects the brain in such a way can be addictive, that said, there's a difference between a gaming addiction and a chemical dependency. Both gaming and gambling addictions are far more a matter of self control, more so anyway than what people typically view as real substance based addictions (drugs).
Especially in the case of gaming. Hence myself having a real lack of empathy for those with such problems. These people let their "wants" guide them, whether it's a want for a cool pictured item, or a big payout. That or just wanting to escape into a virtual medium and live there...
While I have no problem with the idea of such practices being outlawed, I wouldn't miss them. Still the idea of the slippery slope is very real when regulation and legislature come in. Where does it stop, once it starts? Inviting the political world in is pretty much akin to inviting the Vampire inside your home.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The quality of the games has not matched the ever increasing price tag. Adding loot boxes and cash shops actually automatically diminishes the quality of the game to a state in which the games are no longer attractive to the consumer. Furthermore a game should not be permitted to switch business models without offering full refunds for those whom spent money on a game prior to knowledge of a business model change. Bait and switch is illegal too.
Comments
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I fully expect these companies to just sell the attractive items to larger sums of money directly in the cash shop and possible just make all the junk items they know people don't want, back to being earned in-game.
Im sure they can make laws to remove the gambling from games but i don't see this escalating to forcing publishers to not be able to just sell the items directly to players that they have made the devs create unattainable outside of normal gameplay or massive grinds.
In Canada we like our guns too.
Guns don't kill, people do.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
It also makes Kano's over informative post slightly irrelevant to the crux of the issue, aside from being a really good bit of trivia knowledge.
There's ample statistical evidence to support the idea that, in parts of the country where gun control laws are tighter, deaths from guns are lower. There's also DOJ statistics that show that less than 5% of Americans even attempt (much less SUCCESSFULLY attempt) to defend themselves with firearms when they're a victim of a violent or property crime.
On top of that, the same study shows that millions of guns are stolen from citizens who obtained them legally. Many more guns bought legally fall into the hands of criminals than there are instances of Americans defending themselves from criminals using said guns. Yet, a favorite argument against gun control is that criminals will get the guns anyways. It's a spectacular failing of reason that they cannot acknowledge that a huge portion of guns that "criminals are getting anyways" come from the exact same flow of guns they're trying so hard to defend.
There's a veritable smorgasbord of guns for the taking by criminals being bought legally every year by Americans. And take they do. But if we cut off that flow, then they'll be the only ones attaining guns?? It doesn't add up.
I'll pile onto you post here and say that there are differences between Canada and the US. One of these differences is guns like assault rifles. I still haven't heard a great explanation from people in favor of these things. Generally speaking people are correct, people do kill people, but with certain types of weapons, the government helps people be waaaaaay too efficient at doing that. Please! Tell me how you need an assault rifle to defend yourself. I didn't know that the US was in civil war... yet.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Even an assault rifle won't help much when a Bradley IFV rolls up your driveway.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The only thing I'll say is:
The subscription method you can only be taken for $15 a month.
The loot box method you can only be taken for ??? a month.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
No, so why are they needed? So let's get rid of those. Anything semi-automatic or full-auto should be outlawed and the price for violation is death. So the cost is severe enough to outweigh the benefit of even criminals possessing it. I mean we need to think about the children, right?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
That doesn't change the underlying argument you try to dismiss though. The idea that you pay for a set amount of time to play the game isn't the issue; an asinine raid progression throttling system is.
So the sentence for an assault rifle = death
And the sentence for pedophilia = ?
I had a conversation with my 19 year old son this morning about loot boxes and Battlefront 2. The first thing that came out of his mouth was the gambling and all the kids that play these games.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Gaming is a very powerful medium. Whether we want to accept it or not, it does have addictive attributes.
Gaming companies are unable or unwilling to regulate themselves.
Now it I believe it's too late for them to do so.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
When they make laws where the death penalty is enforced for both assault rifle possession and also pedophilia, then I'll support regulating loot boxes. Right now, though, it's a waste of resources. I know zero children with credit cards, so the problem is limited based on their access to funds to actually have that problem manifest itself.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
No argument regarding the use of subs plus a cash shop. It's going far beyond the taxing of game time. Alas, the idea that you will ever force or persuade microtransactions as a whole out of the industry is really fantasy at this point. It's an unrealistic goal. Attempting to rail against that enemy is banging your head against a wall of adamantium.
Especially in the case of gaming. Hence myself having a real lack of empathy for those with such problems. These people let their "wants" guide them, whether it's a want for a cool pictured item, or a big payout. That or just wanting to escape into a virtual medium and live there...
While I have no problem with the idea of such practices being outlawed, I wouldn't miss them. Still the idea of the slippery slope is very real when regulation and legislature come in. Where does it stop, once it starts? Inviting the political world in is pretty much akin to inviting the Vampire inside your home.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson