New Industry 'Think Tank' to Tackle Issues Including Loot Boxes - MMORPG.com News

SBFord

New Industry 'Think Tank' to Tackle Issues Including Loot Boxes - MMORPG.com News

The National Committee for Games Policy is a new organization founded by industry insiders with a two-pronged mission. The first is to provide opportunities to participate as part of a think tank with specific regard to laws and to help inform government policy with "guidance and input from industry leaders". Part of that goal is the collection and analysis of both public and insider information about games in order to determine a "unified political position".

Read the full story here

Vrika

Where do they get their funding?

Is this like the tobacco industry's funding to research that tobacco does not have any harmful health effects?

tawess

Power corrupts and this will be the same...

This will just be another anti-consumer cluster**** shortly.

SEANMCAD

if I was in charge of such a organization the very first thing I would do is to contact the people spending the money on lootboxes and ask them what they think about it

tawess

SEANMCAD said:

if I was in charge of such a organization the very first thing I would do is to contact the people spending the money on lootboxes and ask them what they think about it

No need... There are so many academic studies on gambling done already that nothing really new can be added to it. 

Dauzqul

If it's a MMO with constant updates, I can understand the need to generate a constant income. However, when it comes to a limited FPS like Battlefield, CoD, Battlefront, etc... I should pay my 60 bucks and be done with it. It's absolutely stupid with how companies milk.

SEANMCAD

tawess said:

SEANMCAD said:

if I was in charge of such a organization the very first thing I would do is to contact the people spending the money on lootboxes and ask them what they think about it

No need... There are so many academic studies on gambling done already that nothing really new can be added to it. 

I dont think its remotely out of line to talk to the people spending the money out of all the people one would plan to talk to.

There were also 'studies' that showed smoking was good for your health. Lets take a second look and at least talk to the people we consider victims. 

you know why we should do that? because if we dont someday someone is going to restrict your access to spend money because they assume its bad for you

MadFrenchie

SEANMCAD said:

tawess said:

SEANMCAD said:

if I was in charge of such a organization the very first thing I would do is to contact the people spending the money on lootboxes and ask them what they think about it

No need... There are so many academic studies on gambling done already that nothing really new can be added to it. 

I dont think its remotely out of line to talk to the people spending the money out of all the people one would plan to talk to.

There were also 'studies' that showed smoking was good for your health. Lets take a second look and at least talk to the people we consider victims. 

you know why we should do that? because if we dont someday someone is going to restrict your access to spend money because they assume its bad for you

They already do.  For instance, it's illegal to possess cocaine.  Erego, purchasing cocaine is illegal because the act of purchasing means one is taking possession of cocaine.  That's what a sale is.  The same principle applies to any banned substance or item (such as fully-automatic firearms).

SEANMCAD

MadFrenchie said:

SEANMCAD said:

tawess said:

SEANMCAD said:

if I was in charge of such a organization the very first thing I would do is to contact the people spending the money on lootboxes and ask them what they think about it

No need... There are so many academic studies on gambling done already that nothing really new can be added to it. 

I dont think its remotely out of line to talk to the people spending the money out of all the people one would plan to talk to.

There were also 'studies' that showed smoking was good for your health. Lets take a second look and at least talk to the people we consider victims. 

you know why we should do that? because if we dont someday someone is going to restrict your access to spend money because they assume its bad for you

They already do.  For instance, it's illegal to possess cocaine.  Erego, purchasing cocaine is illegal because the act of purchasing means one is taking possession of cocaine.  That's what a sale is.  The same principle applies to any banned substance or item (such as fully-automatic firearms).

One of the big problems of society is that we never actually talk to the people we claim to be protecting to get their view on the subject.

Its not that I am suggesting the current conclusions are wrong but I am saying others in power have more than once tried to force their views on others in terms of 'helping' without ever talking to the people they claim to be 'helping'. from porn to drugs to even violent crime.

Lets just ask these people we claim to be helping, just to get it on the record before we decide what they can and can not do.

Its a bold step to say 'I dont partake in that activity but I think others should not as well for their own protection' without even saying one word to the people one claims to protect

SEANMCAD

plus...if we are taught that high revenue by a company means the product is of high quality and what the people want...then how does that fit into this?

MadFrenchie

Those laws generally aren't for the protection of the people that choose to participate in the activity, it's usually for the protection of those around them.  The idea that it's protection for those who choose to partake in the activity is just a convenient way to market the law to folks.

I can't lose sleep over someone who wants to snort themselves into an early grave.  It's sad, but you can't save everyone.  However, when they lose all their assets and resort to stealing to get more drug money, then I become a potential victim because I still have my possessions sans a cocaine habit.

That doesn't mean I don't encourage organizations to help folks kick addictions.  All other things being equal, I prefer a productive citizen to a grave marker or a prisoner.  But, in the vast, vast majority of the cases of banning an activity or product, society is more worried about the collateral damage to those around the culprit, rather than a simple benevolent urge to control the culprit's behavior.

That said, society still oversteps at times and is prone to panicked and unproductive responses.

SEANMCAD

MadFrenchie said:

Those laws generally aren't for the protection of the people that choose to participate in the activity, it's usually for the protection of those around them.  .....

doesnt change my observation one bit. Just diverts the conversation to my examples instead of my point.

Lets ask the opinions of those we claim to be helping, is that an unreasonable request?

Sandmanjw

SEANMCAD said:

MadFrenchie said:

SEANMCAD said:

tawess said:

SEANMCAD said:

if I was in charge of such a organization the very first thing I would do is to contact the people spending the money on lootboxes and ask them what they think about it

No need... There are so many academic studies on gambling done already that nothing really new can be added to it. 

I dont think its remotely out of line to talk to the people spending the money out of all the people one would plan to talk to.

There were also 'studies' that showed smoking was good for your health. Lets take a second look and at least talk to the people we consider victims. 

you know why we should do that? because if we dont someday someone is going to restrict your access to spend money because they assume its bad for you

They already do.  For instance, it's illegal to possess cocaine.  Erego, purchasing cocaine is illegal because the act of purchasing means one is taking possession of cocaine.  That's what a sale is.  The same principle applies to any banned substance or item (such as fully-automatic firearms).

One of the big problems of society is that we never actually talk to the people we claim to be protecting to get their view on the subject.

Its not that I am suggesting the current conclusions are wrong but I am saying others in power have more than once tried to force their views on others in terms of 'helping' without ever talking to the people they claim to be 'helping'. from porn to drugs to even violent crime.

Lets just ask these people we claim to be helping, just to get it on the record before we decide what they can and can not do.

Its a bold step to say 'I dont partake in that activity but I think others should not as well for their own protection' without even saying one word to the people one claims to protect

Kinda thought it was common sense not to ask an addict if what they are addicted to is good for them?

That will be the only answer you ever get from these groups.

Never mind, if the talked about regulation or activity is actually addictive.

Bottom line, is and always will be, make a group/committee, and give them the power to make rules and regulations...they will. It is what they were formed for.

Laws, regulations, rules, standards....they just keep growing, because when was the last time a group or committee was formed by these rule makers that was made to get rid of said rules, regulations? Goes against their nature to do away with what gives them power.

Kind of a preview of any society, or country, or government.... they will all eventually collapse from their own weight of bureaucracy and all that goes into the making of them.

Nightbringe1

SEANMCAD said:

plus...if we are taught that high revenue by a company means the product is of high quality and what the people want...then how does that fit into this?

We all know that high revenue does not equal high quality. Quite the opposite, low quality + low price often generates far more revenue. (e.g. WalMart, McDonalds)

The issue with loot boxes in both MMOs and mobile gaming lies in the fact that the companies are hiring addition specialists for the purpose of driving consumer spending. The studies have been done. The results are conclusive. The information and results are in the hands of the corporations and are actively being weaponized for use against ignorant/uneducated masses, because addition engineering is not currently regulated in this medium.

Hariken

Vrika said:

Where do they get their funding?

Is this like the tobacco industry's funding to research that tobacco does not have any harmful health effects?

Correct anytime a organization say they will self regulate is a bad thing for the consumer. This thing is a freaking joke probably bought and payed for by EA.

SEANMCAD

Nightbringe1 said:

SEANMCAD said:

plus...if we are taught that high revenue by a company means the product is of high quality and what the people want...then how does that fit into this?

We all know that high revenue does not equal high quality. Quite the opposite, low quality + low price often generates far more revenue. (e.g. WalMart, McDonalds)

The issue with loot boxes in both MMOs and mobile gaming lies in the fact that the companies are hiring addition specialists for the purpose of driving consumer spending. The studies have been done. The results are conclusive. The information and results are in the hands of the corporations and are actively being weaponized for use against ignorant/uneducated masses, because addition engineering is not currently regulated in this medium.

Two things

1. its very common place here and most places and even economics 101 in high school to teach people that high revenue of a company means consumer likes product. I often (here) try to argue the case that its not always true. this would be one example, however its living in denial to think that its not common assumption that high revenue means people enjoy the product and YES...IT IS....often used here as an argument that a game is of good quality.

2. The 'studies' are NOT in, when it comes to the question of what do the people who are doing it think about it? Its a very slippery slope to get into trying to help people without even asking their view on the subject and when you turn it into law there better a VERY good reason other than fucking blood pressure and empty bank accounts

MadFrenchie

SEANMCAD said:

MadFrenchie said:

Those laws generally aren't for the protection of the people that choose to participate in the activity, it's usually for the protection of those around them.  .....

doesnt change my observation one bit. Just diverts the conversation to my examples instead of my point.

Lets ask the opinions of those we claim to be helping, is that an unreasonable request?

Ask those around them that will feel the collateral effects, then.  Just asking the person choosing to engage in the activity is short-sighted when their decision affects more than just themselves.

SEANMCAD

MadFrenchie said:

SEANMCAD said:

MadFrenchie said:

Those laws generally aren't for the protection of the people that choose to participate in the activity, it's usually for the protection of those around them.  .....

doesnt change my observation one bit. Just diverts the conversation to my examples instead of my point.

Lets ask the opinions of those we claim to be helping, is that an unreasonable request?

Ask those around them that will feel the collateral effects, then.  Just asking the person choosing to engage in the activity is short-sighted when their decision affects more than just themselves.

so this is NOT about consumer protection, but rather 'those who are close the consumer protection'.

That is insane logic, we have to protect people who are close to gamblers because of how they might be affected by the gamblers higher blood pressure and empty bank account.

AND under no condition shall we ask the gambler what he thinks

sweet fuck how about that for an over litigious society?

Lasterba

We need a "think tank" for this?

For God's sake, it's obvious that it's gambling. Pay real money for a chance to win a prize or get nothing of any value at all. I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

SEANMCAD

Lasterba said:

We need a "think tank" for this?

For God's sake, it's obvious that it's gambling. Pay real money for a chance to win a prize or get nothing of any value at all. I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

I think gambling is more for a return of money, not virtual items that in theory do not have value.

that is part 1. part 2 is people moral over reaction to gambling in general....

joewolf79

Oh boy, the industry has formed an "ethics" committee to oversee itself. Surely this will solve all our problems.

Alomar

What a joke.

SEANMCAD

Sandmanjw said:

SEANMCAD said:

MadFrenchie said:

SEANMCAD said:

tawess said:

SEANMCAD said:

if I was in charge of such a organization the very first thing I would do is to contact the people spending the money on lootboxes and ask them what they think about it

No need... There are so many academic studies on gambling done already that nothing really new can be added to it. 

I dont think its remotely out of line to talk to the people spending the money out of all the people one would plan to talk to.

There were also 'studies' that showed smoking was good for your health. Lets take a second look and at least talk to the people we consider victims. 

you know why we should do that? because if we dont someday someone is going to restrict your access to spend money because they assume its bad for you

They already do.  For instance, it's illegal to possess cocaine.  Erego, purchasing cocaine is illegal because the act of purchasing means one is taking possession of cocaine.  That's what a sale is.  The same principle applies to any banned substance or item (such as fully-automatic firearms).

One of the big problems of society is that we never actually talk to the people we claim to be protecting to get their view on the subject.

Its not that I am suggesting the current conclusions are wrong but I am saying others in power have more than once tried to force their views on others in terms of 'helping' without ever talking to the people they claim to be 'helping'. from porn to drugs to even violent crime.

Lets just ask these people we claim to be helping, just to get it on the record before we decide what they can and can not do.

Its a bold step to say 'I dont partake in that activity but I think others should not as well for their own protection' without even saying one word to the people one claims to protect

Kinda thought it was common sense not to ask an addict if what they are addicted to is good for them?

....

that is the wrong question.

The correct question is:
1. 'what do you think about gambling'? and then listen.
2. look around said person and see if you can find something that is damaging that elevates to the level of the law. For example, if you say 'ah they are broke!' ok so now anything that causes poverty is illegal? 'it causes high blood pressure' ok now fast food is illegal?
3. and keep in mind there are 'studies' that show video games and even TV is addictive, so tread lightly on that

its not an easy thing to address and because I am asking question does NOT mean I support one way or the other. What I support is not over reacting from a legal stand point in a way that would later kid us all in the ass.

MadFrenchie

SEANMCAD said:

MadFrenchie said:

SEANMCAD said:

MadFrenchie said:

Those laws generally aren't for the protection of the people that choose to participate in the activity, it's usually for the protection of those around them.  .....

doesnt change my observation one bit. Just diverts the conversation to my examples instead of my point.

Lets ask the opinions of those we claim to be helping, is that an unreasonable request?

Ask those around them that will feel the collateral effects, then.  Just asking the person choosing to engage in the activity is short-sighted when their decision affects more than just themselves.

so this is NOT about consumer protection, but rather 'those who are close the consumer protection'.

That is insane logic, we have to protect people who are close to gamblers because of how they might be affected by the gamblers higher blood pressure and empty bank account.

AND under no condition shall we ask the gambler what he thinks

sweet fuck how about that for an over litigious society?

If one cannot handle the idea that their actions affect more than just themselves, they're likely to be of poor maturity and are most in need of instruction on how to act.

Problem gamblers commonly have an issue with stealing or committing other crimes to help support their habit.  It's in society's interest to prevent a system that creates problem gamblers.  The problem gambler's opinion of gambling means little in that instance.

SEANMCAD

MadFrenchie said:

SEANMCAD said:

MadFrenchie said:

SEANMCAD said:

MadFrenchie said:

Those laws generally aren't for the protection of the people that choose to participate in the activity, it's usually for the protection of those around them.  .....

doesnt change my observation one bit. Just diverts the conversation to my examples instead of my point.

Lets ask the opinions of those we claim to be helping, is that an unreasonable request?

Ask those around them that will feel the collateral effects, then.  Just asking the person choosing to engage in the activity is short-sighted when their decision affects more than just themselves.

so this is NOT about consumer protection, but rather 'those who are close the consumer protection'.

That is insane logic, we have to protect people who are close to gamblers because of how they might be affected by the gamblers higher blood pressure and empty bank account.

AND under no condition shall we ask the gambler what he thinks

sweet fuck how about that for an over litigious society?

If one cannot handle the idea that their actions affect more than just themselves, they're likely to be of poor maturity and are most in need of instruction on how to act.

Problem gamblers commonly have an issue with stealing or committing other crimes to help support their habit.  It's in society's interest to prevent a system that creates problem gamblers.  The problem gambler's opinion of gambling means little in that instance.

of course actions can affect others. but that is not the question

1. Do we legislate any and all actives that MIGHT affect others negitivly no matter how small the negativity might be?
2. Do we classify riding in a car with someone else who is drunk at the same level of how ones blood pressure or no saving account might affect a family member? its absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to compare the two. are we going to now make anything that makes your blood pressure rise illegal because it might affect other people? what about poverty? ok now not saving properly is illegal because poverty  might affect someone else.

SEANMCAD

now gambling is NOT an addiction

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=9198

never mind that I dont think accross the board without question all things that could become addictive should be made illegal, i think that is absurd but it does appear there is NOT even agreement on if its addictive in the first place

Here is one that show ALL video games are addictive
http://www.addictionrecov.org/Addictions/?AID=45