Something something, a fool and his money are soon parted, something something
It's not up to the gubermint, it's up to people who decide to "donate" or "gamble" their money
If you don't want to gamble/donate your money, it's simple, don't
But knowing that you are gambling on a company, know that it's a risk. If we started regulating it this way then sure, you'd see a lot less fools getting parted with their money (at least through this means anyway) and you'd also see a lot less companies trying to create new games for fear of failure and refunding all the money they used to try and create something
I get where you're coming from with wanting to go after predatory companies out for a cash grab though. And that's where the free markets will decide their future, and any future endeavors they have if they've been caught doing a cash-grab in the past
we also would run the risk of members of that centralized authority controlling content.
members might say games with zombies and building mechanics we should not have, we must have lootboxes.
people forget, when you have a centralized authority those people decide for EVERYONE
You mean like that already existing centralized authority that restricts 8 year old's from watching XXX movies?
You have extremist's on one side saying control everything and you have extremists on the other side saying control nothing.
Thank the Gods like I said earlier (ie: two sided coin) that most of us are somewhere in the middle.
What happens when you have an industry with no oversight.
you need to understand that what you are advocating is a fascist state. I am not sure people fully understand the implications to basically say 'zero...literally zero free market principles of any kind can work in the entertainment industry' because that means it can not work ANYWHERE.
which means every single business decision should be regulated by a central authority.
play that out a bit
The only "Free Market" is the "Black Market"
So if society wants to put rules and limits on questionable and/or unethical business practices that makes for a fascist state?
The sad truth is that you need rules and regulations to keep companies and/or people from doing bad things to one another.
No Fascism required.
I am referring to 'aspects that resemble a free market'
lets not try to obfucate the core point by getting into a debate over what is and is not free. The bottom line here is that people are advocating (by proxy) that EVERY business decision by EVERY company for ANY reason, should be monitored and subjected to approval by a centralized authority. From if the game should be $10 instead of $11, to imprisonment if a date for deployment is missed, characters must not show negative emotions, violence must be regulated (oh wait that is fine) etc
that is absurd
Thank the Gods that we are not governed by a two sided coin.
if you cant have some level of flexibility in an entertainment product how can you logically not be even more restrictive on other industries?
For example, if we say 'people are not allowed to give money to a project even when the project states that they do not know for sure if the project will be successful or completed' if we make that a rule, hell how can we have anyone decide on how they want to spend their money on anything? you MUST have salt and pepper for your meal, you cant decide for yourself even if we tell you exactly what youre getting.
its absurd!
people are not donating to KS games because they think its a promise. They know full well its nothing more than a goal, sometimes goals dont work out and that is fine.
and who should this centralized authority be? managers of Electronic Arts or the Developers of the Fun Pimps?
Crowdfunding needs a few rules and regulations such as opening your books to your donors just like a publicly traded company has to do with its investors.
I'm sure we could come up with a few more common sense rules and regulations concerning crowdfunding if we put our minds to it.
What happens when you have an industry with no oversight.
you need to understand that what you are advocating is a fascist state. I am not sure people fully understand the implications to basically say 'zero...literally zero free market principles of any kind can work in the entertainment industry' because that means it can not work ANYWHERE.
which means every single business decision should be regulated by a central authority.
play that out a bit
The only "Free Market" is the "Black Market"
So if society wants to put rules and limits on questionable and/or unethical business practices that makes for a fascist state?
The sad truth is that you need rules and regulations to keep companies and/or people from doing bad things to one another.
No Fascism required.
I am referring to 'aspects that resemble a free market'
lets not try to obfucate the core point by getting into a debate over what is and is not free. The bottom line here is that people are advocating (by proxy) that EVERY business decision by EVERY company for ANY reason, should be monitored and subjected to approval by a centralized authority. From if the game should be $10 instead of $11, to imprisonment if a date for deployment is missed, characters must not show negative emotions, violence must be regulated (oh wait that is fine) etc
that is absurd
Thank the Gods that we are not governed by a two sided coin.
if you cant have some level of flexibility in an entertainment product how can you logically not be even more restrictive on other industries?
For example, if we say 'people are not allowed to give money to a project even when the project states that they do not know for sure if the project will be successful or completed' if we make that a rule, hell how can we have anyone decide on how they want to spend their money on anything? you MUST have salt and pepper for your meal, you cant decide for yourself even if we tell you exactly what youre getting.
its absurd!
people are not donating to KS games because they think its a promise. They know full well its nothing more than a goal, sometimes goals dont work out and that is fine.
and who should this centralized authority be? managers of Electronic Arts or the Developers of the Fun Pimps?
Crowdfunding needs a few rules and regulations such as opening your books to your donors just like a publicly traded company has to do with its investors.
I'm sure we could come up with a few more common sense rules and regulations concerning crowdfunding if we put our minds to it.
Am I thinking like a Fascist?
why would crowdfunding need that? why do you feel that should be the case?
from my view as long as a person is honest about what you are buying, there is no harm to health or public safety then done....market forces should dictate if developers should reveal all accounting or not
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What happens when you have an industry with no oversight.
you need to understand that what you are advocating is a fascist state. I am not sure people fully understand the implications to basically say 'zero...literally zero free market principles of any kind can work in the entertainment industry' because that means it can not work ANYWHERE.
which means every single business decision should be regulated by a central authority.
play that out a bit
The only "Free Market" is the "Black Market"
So if society wants to put rules and limits on questionable and/or unethical business practices that makes for a fascist state?
The sad truth is that you need rules and regulations to keep companies and/or people from doing bad things to one another.
No Fascism required.
I am referring to 'aspects that resemble a free market'
lets not try to obfucate the core point by getting into a debate over what is and is not free. The bottom line here is that people are advocating (by proxy) that EVERY business decision by EVERY company for ANY reason, should be monitored and subjected to approval by a centralized authority. From if the game should be $10 instead of $11, to imprisonment if a date for deployment is missed, characters must not show negative emotions, violence must be regulated (oh wait that is fine) etc
that is absurd
Thank the Gods that we are not governed by a two sided coin.
if you cant have some level of flexibility in an entertainment product how can you logically not be even more restrictive on other industries?
For example, if we say 'people are not allowed to give money to a project even when the project states that they do not know for sure if the project will be successful or completed' if we make that a rule, hell how can we have anyone decide on how they want to spend their money on anything? you MUST have salt and pepper for your meal, you cant decide for yourself even if we tell you exactly what youre getting.
its absurd!
people are not donating to KS games because they think its a promise. They know full well its nothing more than a goal, sometimes goals dont work out and that is fine.
and who should this centralized authority be? managers of Electronic Arts or the Developers of the Fun Pimps?
Crowdfunding needs a few rules and regulations such as opening your books to your donors just like a publicly traded company has to do with its investors.
I'm sure we could come up with a few more common sense rules and regulations concerning crowdfunding if we put our minds to it.
Am I thinking like a Fascist?
why would crowdfunding need that? why do you feel that should be the case?
from my view as long as a person is honest about what you are buying, there is no harm to health or public safety then done....market forces should dictate if developers should reveal all accounting or not
For the exact same reasons that a publicly traded company has to open the books to their investors.
why would crowdfunding need that? why do you feel that should be the case?
from my view as long as a person is honest about what you are buying, there is no harm to health or public safety then done....market forces should dictate if developers should reveal all accounting or not
For the exact same reasons that a publicly traded company has to open the books to their investors.
It helps to keep them honest and accountable.
two things.
1. its not an investment, you are making a donation, its not an investment.
2. investors do NOT get to see all the books on all the projects of publically traded companies. I dont know the details but I am pretty sure they can not see all the details
oh and 3.
3. why should investors be allowed to see the books of a public traded company? regardless of how it really is. Or rather to ask why should it be legally required. why cant market forces work in that case as well?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Yes, I said something I thought I would never say but it's quite clear that game development companies no longer have the ability to focus on creating quality games. Over the past 5 years the focus has changed from creating entertainment that sells to creating revenue schemes targeting consumers and not delivering on product. Before you flame take a look at the following ideas for regulation:
1. Games advertised as 'Early Access' and accept money in exchange for allowing a gamer to play the game before release must publicly state a release date. If that date is not met or changed at any time then the game company must offer a full refund to the gamer at the gamers request.
2. Games implementing loot boxes must publicly post the odds of winning each item in the item pool. Loot boxes will be classified as gambling and will be taxed as such, all revenue generated from loot boxes must be reported for tax purposes. All items which gamers are gambling for must be public knowledge including an item description and abilities of the item. Game companies that update or change item abilities after being won in the loot box gambling system must offer a refund to the gamer if requested.
3. Every non consumable item (mounts, clothing, weapons) available for purchase through an online cash shop must include a target expiration date. If a game is shutdown by the gaming company before the expiration date of item purchased then the game company is responsible to reimburse the gamer for the item purchased.
4. Purchasing made through online shops or any other avenue must be approved by a consenting adult. Gross purchases made without adult approval is subject to 100% refund upon request. The game company must show that a consenting adult has made the purchase.
These are just some starting ideas but I think you get the picture as to why we now need something like this. Gamers are severely getting ripped off across all types of games and I hate to say it but we now need some kind of consumer protection.
1. This is a ridiculous suggestion. Many studios who go down the route of using Early Access to fund, in part, their products and services aren't in a position to commit to a solid release date, and their development aims are generally dependent on the level of purchases. Products expand and contract based on uptake. Even games that do not have Early Access offerings generally don't fix release dates until they are approaching the final phases of production. It would be more prudent to state that Early Access products that solicit early purchases to fund development should have in place clear, independently verified business plans, which would protect consumers far better.
2. Everything you said bar the last part (about refunds for items or odds that change) is fine. You're not entitled to a refund if the odds on slot machines change in casinos. Changing odds is a fundamental part of such games. If you start going down the path of forcing refunds for odds changes on MT items, then what about items that drop in game that have their odds or stats changed? The point of regulating loot box MTs isn't to protect consumers from the micro-game itself and is instead about protecting consumers from the harm associated with gambling.
3. This is a stupid idea, because it will just lead to game developers implementing short-duration MTs and justifying the move by saying "well, we can't offer lifetime MTs because we might shut the game down and have to refund everyone". I'd rather pay £10 for a mount and have it until the game ends, whenever that might be, than spend £10 a month on a 30-day mount.
4. Most game companies, apart from the most unscrupulous, already offer full refunds to parents where children have made purchases without permission. Many game companies have child lock features to prevent children from making such purchases. In principle, I agree; it's fraught with identity issues however, and such a system would be easy to abuse.
These aren't starting ideas. They're overly draconian attempts to punish game developers rather than suggestions as to how to protect consumers.
Careful what you ask the government to regulate. Obsessive gaming is now a recognized disease. You want them regulating how much you can play?
Pathological gambling is a recognised disorder, and has been for years; the government doesn't regulate the amount of time you're allowed to gamble. Substance abuse (alcohol) has been recognised for years; the government doesn't regulate how much alcohol you're allowed to drink. Making ridiculous observations like this helps no one.
I think people are also trying to solve a problem that really in the NET result doesnt exist in the first place.
Sure 'most' games in pure count might be trash (then again might not) but that is not looking at the larger picture accurately. look at what games people are buying in mass. Problem of early access is not games with 5 owners, but rather what are the games with 50,000 like. and those games are like these below, all of which are friggin fan tastic.
Space Engineers,Medieval Engineers,7 Days to Die,Imperium Galactic Survival,The Forest,Subnautica,Life is Feudal,Stranded Deep,From the Depths,Kerbal Space Program,StarMade,Another Brick in the Mall,Elite Dangerous,Kenshi,RimWorld,Hospitalize,Kingdoms,Wurm Unlimited,My Summer Car
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
why would crowdfunding need that? why do you feel that should be the case?
from my view as long as a person is honest about what you are buying, there is no harm to health or public safety then done....market forces should dictate if developers should reveal all accounting or not
For the exact same reasons that a publicly traded company has to open the books to their investors.
It helps to keep them honest and accountable.
two things.
1. its not an investment, you are making a donation, its not an investment.
2. investors do NOT get to see all the books on all the projects of publically traded companies. I dont know the details but I am pretty sure they can not see all the details
oh and 3.
3. why should investors be allowed to see the books of a public traded company? regardless of how it really is. Or rather to ask why should it be legally required. why cant market forces work in that case as well?
1. So because its a donation and not an investment, it means that the recipient can spend a portion of the proceeds on hookers and blow?
2. I'm an investor in three companies and I get a fully detailed accounting report. If anything looks fishy your goddamn rights I'm going to be asking questions.
3. It's a big scary word and its something that a lot of people and companies like to shy away from
rofl. The government doesn't care. We can barely get them to regulate water. The country is turning in to a bunch of Ferengi's. Politicians have become more concerned about their own paychecks and will say and do anything to ensure they keep getting paid.
Yes, I said something I thought I would never say but it's quite clear that game development companies no longer have the ability to focus on creating quality games. Over the past 5 years the focus has changed from creating entertainment that sells to creating revenue schemes targeting consumers and not delivering on product. Before you flame take a look at the following ideas for regulation:
1. Games advertised as 'Early Access' and accept money in exchange for allowing a gamer to play the game before release must publicly state a release date. If that date is not met or changed at any time then the game company must offer a full refund to the gamer at the gamers request.
2. Games implementing loot boxes must publicly post the odds of winning each item in the item pool. Loot boxes will be classified as gambling and will be taxed as such, all revenue generated from loot boxes must be reported for tax purposes. All items which gamers are gambling for must be public knowledge including an item description and abilities of the item. Game companies that update or change item abilities after being won in the loot box gambling system must offer a refund to the gamer if requested.
3. Every non consumable item (mounts, clothing, weapons) available for purchase through an online cash shop must include a target expiration date. If a game is shutdown by the gaming company before the expiration date of item purchased then the game company is responsible to reimburse the gamer for the item purchased.
4. Purchasing made through online shops or any other avenue must be approved by a consenting adult. Gross purchases made without adult approval is subject to 100% refund upon request. The game company must show that a consenting adult has made the purchase.
These are just some starting ideas but I think you get the picture as to why we now need something like this. Gamers are severely getting ripped off across all types of games and I hate to say it but we now need some kind of consumer protection.
1. No, games are in the business of development not manufacturing. 2. I don't believe odds will help at all no one likes losing, I do believe age restrictions should come into play and if a game has heavy loot box implementation then an international law of age to play this game may need to be looked at 3. A date of 3 months should suffice after that you've used it enough or why buy it? 4. An account should be approved yes if a game is set at certain restrictions - refer to number 2.
I also think gamers expect too much for too little generally and great quality games are getting washed in the same tears poor quality games are. There needs to be more quality control on development side and a clean up of what exactly a person is buying now that "triple A" applies to more genres than just MMORPG's.
It's about value not validation, there are many gamers who cannot afford to play some games and simply shouldn't. Look after yourself, your house, your health, your well being first. Always.
why would crowdfunding need that? why do you feel that should be the case?
from my view as long as a person is honest about what you are buying, there is no harm to health or public safety then done....market forces should dictate if developers should reveal all accounting or not
For the exact same reasons that a publicly traded company has to open the books to their investors.
It helps to keep them honest and accountable.
two things.
1. its not an investment, you are making a donation, its not an investment.
2. investors do NOT get to see all the books on all the projects of publically traded companies. I dont know the details but I am pretty sure they can not see all the details
oh and 3.
3. why should investors be allowed to see the books of a public traded company? regardless of how it really is. Or rather to ask why should it be legally required. why cant market forces work in that case as well?
1. So because its a donation and not an investment, it means that the recipient can spend a portion of the proceeds on hookers and blow?
2. I'm an investor in three companies and I get a fully detailed accounting report. If anything looks fishy your goddamn rights I'm going to be asking questions.
3. It's a big scary word and its something that a lot of people and companies like to shy away from
The word is *accountability*
1. yes, if they want to get plenty of donations maybe they can decide to reveal what they are spending on. if they dont give a shit, then the dont have to. again market forces.
2. investors are not required to be able to see all the books of all the projects I am nearly positive that an investors report is not going to contain how much they spent on a coffee machine which was a huge debate flame throwing around in the SC world. you are not going to get that level of detail.
3. the question is not so much why should they (even though I asked it that way), the question is why should they be legally REQUIRED to. companies that dont will have less investors, companies that do, will have more investors. that is market principles. People should be allowed the freedom to be stupid and even to be rude for that matter. Starting to regulate ANYTHING by a centralized authority needs to be because of very extreemly serious reasons because its always a dicy road to go down to break on peoples freedoms and spending $20 on an KS likely will never qualify OTHER than the statement of 'as long as the person asking isnt liying'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
2. investors are not required to be able to see all the books of all the projects I am nearly positive that an investors report is not going to contain how much they spent on a coffee machine which was a huge debate flame throwing around in the SC world. you are not going to get that level of detail.
I just want to point out that as a current investor in a few companies I actually get a very detailed account of what is going on with those companies, does it include a coffee machine purchase.. typically no because as an investor that's a detail that I don't care about.. but what I do care about are capital expenses and how much is being spent in the quarter.. of which that coffee machine fits into. Gov regulation requires companies to report all sorts of things to its investors along with help protecting against insider trading etc.
Point is there is a level of regulation that is there to protect the investors.. this is the root of what I'm getting at. It's not a 2 sided coin, we aren't asking for everything to be regulated.. only the ignorant and non serious posts would suggest that. What we are saying that the gaming industry is no longer a new, immature industry where games are being made out of garages and the huge success stories are the developer who made a few million. Today these are 200million+ projects with potentially billions in revenue that as a industry has zero regulation.. this is not a good thing.
If somebody spends 25k on a game that hasn't been released and nobody has an idea if it will ever get released.. shame on him.. but at one point do we start putting in some regulation to help protect this consumer? If I buy a house for 400k only to find out that 3 days later the seller lied and they didn't own the title I would still owe that 400k if there was no regulation.
So when is enough enough? How much money does this grow to until the consumer starts to need protection? What's your breaking point?
2. investors are not required to be able to see all the books of all the projects I am nearly positive that an investors report is not going to contain how much they spent on a coffee machine which was a huge debate flame throwing around in the SC world. you are not going to get that level of detail.
I just want to point out that as a current investor in a few companies I actually get a very detailed account of what is going on with those companies, does it include a coffee machine purchase.. typically no because as an investor that's a detail that I don't care about.. but what I do care about are capital expenses and how much is being spent in the quarter.. of which that coffee machine fits into. Gov regulation requires companies to report all sorts of things to its investors along with help protecting against insider trading etc.
Point is there is a level of regulation that is there to protect the investors.. this is the root of what I'm getting at. It's not a 2 sided coin, we aren't asking for everything to be regulated.. only the ignorant and non serious posts would suggest that. What we are saying that the gaming industry is no longer a new, immature industry where games are being made out of garages and the huge success stories are the developer who made a few million. Today these are 200million+ projects with potentially billions in revenue that as a industry has zero regulation.. this is not a good thing.
If somebody spends 25k on a game that hasn't been released and nobody has an idea if it will ever get released.. shame on him.. but at one point do we start putting in some regulation to help protect this consumer? If I buy a house for 400k only to find out that 3 days later the seller lied and they didn't own the title I would still owe that 400k if there was no regulation.
So when is enough enough? How much money does this grow to until the consumer starts to need protection? What's your breaking point?
but here is the thing
are they legally REQUIRED to do that?
my point is not that companies should not reveal to customer, donators or investors or for that matter anyone for any reason all their information on what they spend.
my point is why should it be legally REQUIRED to do so? -Opening the door for someone who is behind me when I am walking into a building is the 'right thing to do' but should it be law? -If I know my product costs more around the corner maybe I should not sell it for more, but should that be the law?
should doing the right thing in ALL cases no matter what be a legal requirement? and if so who decides on what is the right thing?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
2. investors are not required to be able to see all the books of all the projects I am nearly positive that an investors report is not going to contain how much they spent on a coffee machine which was a huge debate flame throwing around in the SC world. you are not going to get that level of detail.
I just want to point out that as a current investor in a few companies I actually get a very detailed account of what is going on with those companies, does it include a coffee machine purchase.. typically no because as an investor that's a detail that I don't care about.. but what I do care about are capital expenses and how much is being spent in the quarter.. of which that coffee machine fits into. Gov regulation requires companies to report all sorts of things to its investors along with help protecting against insider trading etc.
Point is there is a level of regulation that is there to protect the investors.. this is the root of what I'm getting at. It's not a 2 sided coin, we aren't asking for everything to be regulated.. only the ignorant and non serious posts would suggest that. What we are saying that the gaming industry is no longer a new, immature industry where games are being made out of garages and the huge success stories are the developer who made a few million. Today these are 200million+ projects with potentially billions in revenue that as a industry has zero regulation.. this is not a good thing.
If somebody spends 25k on a game that hasn't been released and nobody has an idea if it will ever get released.. shame on him.. but at one point do we start putting in some regulation to help protect this consumer? If I buy a house for 400k only to find out that 3 days later the seller lied and they didn't own the title I would still owe that 400k if there was no regulation.
So when is enough enough? How much money does this grow to until the consumer starts to need protection? What's your breaking point?
but here is the thing
are they legally REQUIRED to do that?
my point is not that companies should not reveal to customer, donators or investors or for that matter anyone for any reason all their information on what they spend.
my point is why should it be legally REQUIRED to do so? -Opening the door for someone who is behind me when I am walking into a building is the 'right thing to do' but should it be law? -If I know my product costs more around the corner maybe I should not sell it for more, but should that be the law?
should doing the right thing in ALL cases no matter what be a legal requirement? and if so who decides on what is the right thing?
Again, you are trying to paint things as black and white.. and that's not what this is. There is a set of information that a company is legally required to release, further information released is up to them if they feel the investors would be interested in it. The point is there is a base set of regulations that they must follow.
So in your example, no, opening the door is not a requirement, but I can guarantee you that there is some regulation around the design and development of the door. And that's the point.
I don't think we need more regulation, i think we just need to ensure that existing laws are properly enforced particularly when it comes to gambling, if your going to have loot box gambling mechanics in a game, then the game should be rated accordingly and players will have to be verified as being old enough to take part in those activities, this already happens in online gambling websites, the wife is keen on playing bingo and she had to verify her identity/age etc. before she could play the games, i see no reason why this cannot also be done for loot box games. This just means enforcing existing regulations and not allowing exceptions which is pretty much what games such as SW:BF2 and Destiny 2 etc. have done, make it so that there are no exceptions and that the existing laws are enforced and maybe, just maybe some of these dirty devs will clean up their acts and get back into the business of actually making 'games'.
2. investors are not required to be able to see all the books of all the projects I am nearly positive that an investors report is not going to contain how much they spent on a coffee machine which was a huge debate flame throwing around in the SC world. you are not going to get that level of detail.
I just want to point out that as a current investor in a few companies I actually get a very detailed account of what is going on with those companies, does it include a coffee machine purchase.. typically no because as an investor that's a detail that I don't care about.. but what I do care about are capital expenses and how much is being spent in the quarter.. of which that coffee machine fits into. Gov regulation requires companies to report all sorts of things to its investors along with help protecting against insider trading etc.
Point is there is a level of regulation that is there to protect the investors.. this is the root of what I'm getting at. It's not a 2 sided coin, we aren't asking for everything to be regulated.. only the ignorant and non serious posts would suggest that. What we are saying that the gaming industry is no longer a new, immature industry where games are being made out of garages and the huge success stories are the developer who made a few million. Today these are 200million+ projects with potentially billions in revenue that as a industry has zero regulation.. this is not a good thing.
If somebody spends 25k on a game that hasn't been released and nobody has an idea if it will ever get released.. shame on him.. but at one point do we start putting in some regulation to help protect this consumer? If I buy a house for 400k only to find out that 3 days later the seller lied and they didn't own the title I would still owe that 400k if there was no regulation.
So when is enough enough? How much money does this grow to until the consumer starts to need protection? What's your breaking point?
but here is the thing
are they legally REQUIRED to do that?
my point is not that companies should not reveal to customer, donators or investors or for that matter anyone for any reason all their information on what they spend.
my point is why should it be legally REQUIRED to do so? -Opening the door for someone who is behind me when I am walking into a building is the 'right thing to do' but should it be law? -If I know my product costs more around the corner maybe I should not sell it for more, but should that be the law?
should doing the right thing in ALL cases no matter what be a legal requirement? and if so who decides on what is the right thing?
Again, you are trying to paint things as black and white.. and that's not what this is. There is a set of information that a company is legally required to release, further information released is up to them if they feel the investors would be interested in it. The point is there is a base set of regulations that they must follow.
So in your example, no, opening the door is not a requirement, but I can guarantee you that there is some regulation around the design and development of the door. And that's the point.
when it comes to regulation. ANYTHING that is regulated should be done only for very serious very specific reasons. and 'becasue its the right thing to do' is not good enough.
so the question is not why should every company reveal all money spent to investors, consumers or anyone who asks or anything in between that but the question is why should it be a legal REQUIREMENT to do so.
any regulation is a chip away at ones freedom. regulations are important in the area of health and safety. any regulation suggested in my mind needs a very important solid and specific reason
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
As absurd as what this is, it is just as absurd to state things like "buyer beware" or "try understanding what you're getting." The government has regulated all sorts of products: - Almost every piece of the car you drive. It's safe because you know what to expect. If someone wanted to sell you an alpha car, the government would come in and say no. - Almost every piece of your house; from the smoke alarms to your roof materials to the bed you lay on. Regulated to make sure it's what you thought you were buying. - The food you eat. All regulated. That is why they don't sell alpha chips - because the government would say no.
I do not think the industry should or could be regulated. And the gambling is not healthy either. But, the ideas proposed are a pipe dream. You can go on and on about how my items mentioned deal with safety, but money is safety too. And ask anyone who has dealt with a compulsive gambler, it is a problem and can be a safety issue.
So OP, you're not out of line. But, you are living in a fantasy world. Maybe Norrath?
As absurd as what this is, it is just as absurd to state things like "buyer beware" or "try understanding what you're getting." The government has regulated all sorts of products: - Almost every piece of the car you drive. It's safe because you know what to expect. If someone wanted to sell you an alpha car, the government would come in and say no. - Almost every piece of your house; from the smoke alarms to your roof materials to the bed you lay on. Regulated to make sure it's what you thought you were buying. - The food you eat. All regulated. That is why they don't sell alpha chips - because the government would say no.
I do not think the industry should or could be regulated. And the gambling is not healthy either. But, the ideas proposed are a pipe dream. You can go on and on about how my items mentioned deal with safety, but money is safety too. And ask anyone who has dealt with a compulsive gambler, it is a problem and can be a safety issue.
So OP, you're not out of line. But, you are living in a fantasy world. Maybe Norrath?
the idea behind 'health and safety' is actually the 'health and safety of others'.
So if I want to spend more money then I have, fill my house with toys and expensive dinners I can do that. doing that should not be illegal.
trying to regulate good spending habits is walking into dangerous territory.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
As absurd as what this is, it is just as absurd to state things like "buyer beware" or "try understanding what you're getting." The government has regulated all sorts of products: - Almost every piece of the car you drive. It's safe because you know what to expect. If someone wanted to sell you an alpha car, the government would come in and say no. - Almost every piece of your house; from the smoke alarms to your roof materials to the bed you lay on. Regulated to make sure it's what you thought you were buying. - The food you eat. All regulated. That is why they don't sell alpha chips - because the government would say no.
I do not think the industry should or could be regulated. And the gambling is not healthy either. But, the ideas proposed are a pipe dream. You can go on and on about how my items mentioned deal with safety, but money is safety too. And ask anyone who has dealt with a compulsive gambler, it is a problem and can be a safety issue.
So OP, you're not out of line. But, you are living in a fantasy world. Maybe Norrath?
the idea behind 'health and safety' is actually the 'health and safety of others'.
So if I want to spend more money then I have, fill my house with toys and expensive dinners I can do that. doing that should not be illegal.
trying to regulate good spending habits is walking into dangerous territory.
You are thinking to hard about this, why is there regulation? It's to prevent people like Bernie Madoff from stealing 64 billion dollars from investors. Do you think those investors.. especially the ones that committed suicide were at risk of their health and safety of others? Now imagine a mature industry like stock and finance without regulations.. how many Bernie Madoff's would there be out there? It would be a world in chaos.
So pause for a second and let me ask you this, is there that big of a difference between Bennie Madoff and Star Citizen? Star Citizen (a space game) is now selling tanks for 100 bucks each.. does that not smell just a little bit fishy to you? The link I posted above detailed 1 players struggle to get 25k that he spent on Star Citizen back.. what do you think is going to happen when a lot of players demand their money back? It's Bernie Madoff all over again.. can't you see that?
Most players have only spent a couple hundred.. but some have spent a lot more.. what are they going to do with Star Citizen goes belly up? Health and Safety of others right... hmmm.
As absurd as what this is, it is just as absurd to state things like "buyer beware" or "try understanding what you're getting." The government has regulated all sorts of products: - Almost every piece of the car you drive. It's safe because you know what to expect. If someone wanted to sell you an alpha car, the government would come in and say no. - Almost every piece of your house; from the smoke alarms to your roof materials to the bed you lay on. Regulated to make sure it's what you thought you were buying. - The food you eat. All regulated. That is why they don't sell alpha chips - because the government would say no.
I do not think the industry should or could be regulated. And the gambling is not healthy either. But, the ideas proposed are a pipe dream. You can go on and on about how my items mentioned deal with safety, but money is safety too. And ask anyone who has dealt with a compulsive gambler, it is a problem and can be a safety issue.
So OP, you're not out of line. But, you are living in a fantasy world. Maybe Norrath?
the idea behind 'health and safety' is actually the 'health and safety of others'.
So if I want to spend more money then I have, fill my house with toys and expensive dinners I can do that. doing that should not be illegal.
trying to regulate good spending habits is walking into dangerous territory.
You are thinking to hard about this, why is there regulation? It's to prevent people like Bernie Madoff from stealing 64 billion dollars from investors. Do you think those investors.. especially the ones that committed suicide were at risk of their health and safety of others? Now imagine a mature industry like stock and finance without regulations.. how many Bernie Madoff's would there be out there? It would be a world in chaos.
So pause for a second and let me ask you this, is there that big of a difference between Bennie Madoff and Star Citizen? Star Citizen (a space game) is now selling tanks for 100 bucks each.. does that not smell just a little bit fishy to you? The link I posted above detailed 1 players struggle to get 25k that he spent on Star Citizen back.. what do you think is going to happen when a lot of players demand their money back? It's Bernie Madoff all over again.. can't you see that?
Most players have only spent a couple hundred.. but some have spent a lot more.. what are they going to do with Star Citizen goes belly up? Health and Safety of others right... hmmm.
first off I am really getting tired of a kickstarter donation for a game being compared to making a financial investment.
but again, lets say instead of making it a market CHOICE to show books or not with a market outcome reflecting the better option over time, lets assume they make it a legal REQUIREMENT to do so. how will you know the books are right? how will you understand that to keep friggin GOOD GAME DEVELOPERS you might want to offer them good coffee. what are you going to do? if you see something in the books you dont like? ask for your money back?
what qualifications do you have to micromanage a project?
I dont think it should be legally REQUIRED to do that, if a developer wants to then fine, have at it. community is asking for it do it.
we really need to back the fuck off this desire to regulate friggin EVERYTHING
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Important that you put the "hear me out!" bit in your post, OP. Glad you did. I agree with alot of what you're saying, at least in sentiment. Instead of banning everything, you are seriously trying to regulate it.
The gambling aspects may actually come to fruition at some point. Because yeah, it(usually represented as "boxes and keys") is so very much gambling it's not even funny; I don't know how anyone could argue against that.
When it comes to the "refunding money spent for promises not kept" bits, I doubt that would or could ever happen. For it to work, that money would have to be escrowed, and if it was, then the company wouldn't bother with it, because they need the moneynow! Or they'll promise it, declare bankruptcy and players will get pennies on the dollar, if anything.
I rather not have the government mess with my games, I have a feeling their priorities would be more about removing violence, sex and anything else they don't like then helping us...
Let's instead make a deal: We wont buy any lootboxes, wont pay for alpha access (unless we crowdfund the game) and skip games that do those things. If enough people do that they will go away. The only really winning way to handle "pay2win" games is to not play them.
But what are you willing to accept if there is a silent majority that are fine with these things?
That is how it is right now so I skip those games. I can accept GW2s silly black lion keys since they are useless though but anything more lootboxy then that and I find something else to play.
I am not interested in pay2win and if you like pay2win there are other kinds of games that are far more fun and where you actually can recover some or even earn cash on later. Magic the gathering is a good example, Warhammer 40K and Flames of war are others, at least you get real stuff there.
CCGs and miniture games are always pay2win and it works there. FPS and MMORPGs on the other hand works really poorly as pay2win. Particularly MMOs get insanely boring as pay2win since a lot of the progression is gear progression and if they sell that good gear you only have the eveling left. Add selling max level boost and you can skip paying altogether and just mail EA all your monney to save time and boredom.
Comments
You have extremist's on one side saying control everything and you have extremists on the other side saying control nothing.
Thank the Gods like I said earlier (ie: two sided coin) that most of us are somewhere in the middle.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I'm sure we could come up with a few more common sense rules and regulations concerning crowdfunding if we put our minds to it.
Am I thinking like a Fascist?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
why do you feel that should be the case?
from my view as long as a person is honest about what you are buying, there is no harm to health or public safety then done....market forces should dictate if developers should reveal all accounting or not
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It helps to keep them honest and accountable.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
1. its not an investment, you are making a donation, its not an investment.
2. investors do NOT get to see all the books on all the projects of publically traded companies. I dont know the details but I am pretty sure they can not see all the details
oh and 3.
3. why should investors be allowed to see the books of a public traded company? regardless of how it really is. Or rather to ask why should it be legally required. why cant market forces work in that case as well?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2. Everything you said bar the last part (about refunds for items or odds that change) is fine. You're not entitled to a refund if the odds on slot machines change in casinos. Changing odds is a fundamental part of such games. If you start going down the path of forcing refunds for odds changes on MT items, then what about items that drop in game that have their odds or stats changed? The point of regulating loot box MTs isn't to protect consumers from the micro-game itself and is instead about protecting consumers from the harm associated with gambling.
3. This is a stupid idea, because it will just lead to game developers implementing short-duration MTs and justifying the move by saying "well, we can't offer lifetime MTs because we might shut the game down and have to refund everyone". I'd rather pay £10 for a mount and have it until the game ends, whenever that might be, than spend £10 a month on a 30-day mount.
4. Most game companies, apart from the most unscrupulous, already offer full refunds to parents where children have made purchases without permission. Many game companies have child lock features to prevent children from making such purchases. In principle, I agree; it's fraught with identity issues however, and such a system would be easy to abuse.
These aren't starting ideas. They're overly draconian attempts to punish game developers rather than suggestions as to how to protect consumers.
Sure 'most' games in pure count might be trash (then again might not) but that is not looking at the larger picture accurately. look at what games people are buying in mass. Problem of early access is not games with 5 owners, but rather what are the games with 50,000 like.
and those games are like these below, all of which are friggin fan tastic.
Space Engineers,Medieval Engineers,7 Days to Die,Imperium Galactic Survival,The Forest,Subnautica,Life is Feudal,Stranded Deep,From the Depths,Kerbal Space Program,StarMade,Another Brick in the Mall,Elite Dangerous,Kenshi,RimWorld,Hospitalize,Kingdoms,Wurm Unlimited,My Summer Car
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2. I'm an investor in three companies and I get a fully detailed accounting report. If anything looks fishy your goddamn rights I'm going to be asking questions.
3. It's a big scary word and its something that a lot of people and companies like to shy away from
The word is *accountability*
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
2. I don't believe odds will help at all no one likes losing, I do believe age restrictions should come into play and if a game has heavy loot box implementation then an international law of age to play this game may need to be looked at
3. A date of 3 months should suffice after that you've used it enough or why buy it?
4. An account should be approved yes if a game is set at certain restrictions - refer to number 2.
I also think gamers expect too much for too little generally and great quality games are getting washed in the same tears poor quality games are. There needs to be more quality control on development side and a clean up of what exactly a person is buying now that "triple A" applies to more genres than just MMORPG's.
It's about value not validation, there are many gamers who cannot afford to play some games and simply shouldn't. Look after yourself, your house, your health, your well being first. Always.
2. investors are not required to be able to see all the books of all the projects I am nearly positive that an investors report is not going to contain how much they spent on a coffee machine which was a huge debate flame throwing around in the SC world. you are not going to get that level of detail.
3. the question is not so much why should they (even though I asked it that way), the question is why should they be legally REQUIRED to. companies that dont will have less investors, companies that do, will have more investors. that is market principles. People should be allowed the freedom to be stupid and even to be rude for that matter. Starting to regulate ANYTHING by a centralized authority needs to be because of very extreemly serious reasons because its always a dicy road to go down to break on peoples freedoms and spending $20 on an KS likely will never qualify OTHER than the statement of 'as long as the person asking isnt liying'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Point is there is a level of regulation that is there to protect the investors.. this is the root of what I'm getting at. It's not a 2 sided coin, we aren't asking for everything to be regulated.. only the ignorant and non serious posts would suggest that. What we are saying that the gaming industry is no longer a new, immature industry where games are being made out of garages and the huge success stories are the developer who made a few million. Today these are 200million+ projects with potentially billions in revenue that as a industry has zero regulation.. this is not a good thing.
If somebody spends 25k on a game that hasn't been released and nobody has an idea if it will ever get released.. shame on him.. but at one point do we start putting in some regulation to help protect this consumer? If I buy a house for 400k only to find out that 3 days later the seller lied and they didn't own the title I would still owe that 400k if there was no regulation.
So when is enough enough? How much money does this grow to until the consumer starts to need protection? What's your breaking point?
are they legally REQUIRED to do that?
my point is not that companies should not reveal to customer, donators or investors or for that matter anyone for any reason all their information on what they spend.
my point is why should it be legally REQUIRED to do so?
-Opening the door for someone who is behind me when I am walking into a building is the 'right thing to do' but should it be law?
-If I know my product costs more around the corner maybe I should not sell it for more, but should that be the law?
should doing the right thing in ALL cases no matter what be a legal requirement? and if so who decides on what is the right thing?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
So in your example, no, opening the door is not a requirement, but I can guarantee you that there is some regulation around the design and development of the door. And that's the point.
so the question is not why should every company reveal all money spent to investors, consumers or anyone who asks or anything in between that but the question is why should it be a legal REQUIREMENT to do so.
any regulation is a chip away at ones freedom. regulations are important in the area of health and safety. any regulation suggested in my mind needs a very important solid and specific reason
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
- Almost every piece of the car you drive. It's safe because you know what to expect. If someone wanted to sell you an alpha car, the government would come in and say no.
- Almost every piece of your house; from the smoke alarms to your roof materials to the bed you lay on. Regulated to make sure it's what you thought you were buying.
- The food you eat. All regulated. That is why they don't sell alpha chips - because the government would say no.
I do not think the industry should or could be regulated. And the gambling is not healthy either. But, the ideas proposed are a pipe dream. You can go on and on about how my items mentioned deal with safety, but money is safety too. And ask anyone who has dealt with a compulsive gambler, it is a problem and can be a safety issue.
So OP, you're not out of line. But, you are living in a fantasy world. Maybe Norrath?
So if I want to spend more money then I have, fill my house with toys and expensive dinners I can do that. doing that should not be illegal.
trying to regulate good spending habits is walking into dangerous territory.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
So pause for a second and let me ask you this, is there that big of a difference between Bennie Madoff and Star Citizen? Star Citizen (a space game) is now selling tanks for 100 bucks each.. does that not smell just a little bit fishy to you? The link I posted above detailed 1 players struggle to get 25k that he spent on Star Citizen back.. what do you think is going to happen when a lot of players demand their money back? It's Bernie Madoff all over again.. can't you see that?
Most players have only spent a couple hundred.. but some have spent a lot more.. what are they going to do with Star Citizen goes belly up? Health and Safety of others right... hmmm.
but again, lets say instead of making it a market CHOICE to show books or not with a market outcome reflecting the better option over time, lets assume they make it a legal REQUIREMENT to do so.
how will you know the books are right? how will you understand that to keep friggin GOOD GAME DEVELOPERS you might want to offer them good coffee. what are you going to do? if you see something in the books you dont like? ask for your money back?
what qualifications do you have to micromanage a project?
I dont think it should be legally REQUIRED to do that, if a developer wants to then fine, have at it. community is asking for it do it.
we really need to back the fuck off this desire to regulate friggin EVERYTHING
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The gambling aspects may actually come to fruition at some point. Because yeah, it(usually represented as "boxes and keys") is so very much gambling it's not even funny; I don't know how anyone could argue against that.
When it comes to the "refunding money spent for promises not kept" bits, I doubt that would or could ever happen. For it to work, that money would have to be escrowed, and if it was, then the company wouldn't bother with it, because they need the money now! Or they'll promise it, declare bankruptcy and players will get pennies on the dollar, if anything.
Glad you're trying to find middle ground, OP!
I am not interested in pay2win and if you like pay2win there are other kinds of games that are far more fun and where you actually can recover some or even earn cash on later. Magic the gathering is a good example, Warhammer 40K and Flames of war are others, at least you get real stuff there.
CCGs and miniture games are always pay2win and it works there. FPS and MMORPGs on the other hand works really poorly as pay2win. Particularly MMOs get insanely boring as pay2win since a lot of the progression is gear progression and if they sell that good gear you only have the eveling left. Add selling max level boost and you can skip paying altogether and just mail EA all your monney to save time and boredom.