Well I don't have time to dissect the research here right now but even the article uses the word "suggests" and concludes there's strong evidence which requires further discussion then takes the matter into their own hands of calling companies and asking them to remove the lootboxes--which is rather weird--but you chose the word "proven", which is bit of a clickbait mate. Or maybe I have missed it?
And this is a preprint which means this research might have 0 value. The design and the method is questionable, but as I said I can't get into it and you shouldn't take my word for it. Let's see which journal would publish it first and if gets cited at all. Otherwise you can find similar unpublished research to 'prove' almost everything, specially when it comes down to human and social sciences.
And last but least, the authors are computer scientists. So again it is a bit of a stretch when they decided to write about complex human behavior.
But, I can be wrong. I'll give it a proper read and will let you know if my stance changes.
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
Loot boxes need to disappear from games. They can sell specific digital items all they want, even if they have no real value, since players know exactly what they are getting, but loot boxes are a pure and simple scam.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were rigged to give somewhat good items with the first ones people buy to get them hooked on buying more.
Just because the rewards aren't cash, that doesn't mean it's not gambling. If current laws don't properly treat this as gambling then the laws need to change.
Even GGG uses these things to take advantage of players
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
There is a simple way to deal with games that have loot boxes, particularly those that involve real money transactions as part of the process of obtaining/opening a loot box, have a minimum age rating of 18+ on the games and label them as being Adult content, and absolutely require proof of age for any player wishing to play them, because most of the time the games that have these gambling mechanics are aimed at minors.
Just because the rewards aren't cash, that doesn't mean it's not gambling. If current laws don't properly treat this as gambling then the laws need to change.
Even GGG uses these things to take advantage of players
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
But in real world gambling the chance of getting nothing is enormous.
Lootboxes always give you something of value - not the prized 1/1000 item that you are looking for but you get something useful - like crafting mats, etc...
So lootboxes are more of RNG buying - if lootboxes had 99% chance of giving you nothing - it would be more like gambling.
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
from a gamers perspective , loot boxes are nothing more than annoyance , I dont buy them dont care , if they give me one ill open it .. But players are buying Millions and millions of these ,so they are not going away ..
Ya know what they remind of tho , you know when you take yer kid to Perkins for ex.. (chain Restaurant in States)
On the way out , and i just went thru this Sunday and i laughed to myself .. "Its a Fuggin Lootbox"
So on the way out next to the Gumball Machine there is the machine that for .75 cents your kid can get a Sticker ,
I said to my kid as looked at the shiny stickers on the front " Which one ya wanna get " (Marvel Heroes)
" Hulk , i want that HUlk " he adds ..." Thats the Ultra Rare !!"
I give him the .75 .. he pulls the lever and gets the a Common Spidey which he likes but ..
"Maybe next time Jr lets go"
So whats the difference , these have been around for decades and noone screaming LootBox
ITs a box ...
You spend money to get a guaranteed Sticker with a chance to get Rares Ultra etc ...
Maybe they should be banned next along with the Gumball machine that has the Rare and elusive Rainbow Gumball in it tthat every kid wants ...
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
So you're saying that they're like a box of chocolates, Forrest?
Good point though: they are a different kind of thing that differentiates them from all-or-nothing gambling games. And those all or nothing games are the ones we usually think of when we think about gambling.
But that's just one type of gambling. There is nothing in the standard dictionary definition of gambling ( the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes) that excludes the way loot boxes work from also being considered another type of gambling.
Also "always get something decent" is a bit of a stretch for some games unless you're really, really easy to please.
"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
Perhaps it's more about the addictive effects of gaming in general. Fortnite Cited in Over 200 UK Divorce Court Cases - Game Rant It's an extreme but my point would be that their are degrees of gaming addiction that make it harder for some people to pay their bills or even keep their job.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I'm not so sure it's a gambling problem as much as it is a problem that gamers feel they "have to win" all the time and lootboxes may offer them better stuff to help them win......ALso most gamers I know have no clue about money and will throw away of cash on games.....Thats how kickstarter became popular because they know how easily gamers and their money are parted.
Just because the rewards aren't cash, that doesn't mean it's not gambling. If current laws don't properly treat this as gambling then the laws need to change.
Even GGG uses these things to take advantage of players
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
But in real world gambling the chance of getting nothing is enormous.
Lootboxes always give you something of value - not the prized 1/1000 item that you are looking for but you get something useful - like crafting mats, etc...
So lootboxes are more of RNG buying - if lootboxes had 99% chance of giving you nothing - it would be more like gambling.
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
99% chance of getting nothing? Lol... maybe if all you play are slot machines.
Always get something decent? that's a matter of opinion. Personally I don't see a lot of value added in paying $5 for a couple XP potions.
Turning to government to create the control we, both collectively and, in the main, individually seem unable or unwilling to exercise is inevitably going to lead to unintended consequences. We want government to "clean up" the mess, a mess we blame on everyone but ourselves, but inevitably that control we're asking for isn't going to just limit other people's "bad" choices, but also limit your choices in ways you (in the general, not specific) aren't going to like and aren't going to be able to adequately predict beforehand.
To me, this is honestly just a very poor argument. Not sure who the "we" you mention is, but it sure as heck isn't ME.
Here is what I said in the OP: My own take continues to be that they need to give ADULT consumers the information to make informed decisions and then those ADULTS should be able to do what they want. It is also my opinion that these absolutely should be restricted from CHILDREN. Just as Alcohol is restricted. No marketing games to kids and then hiding gambling boxes behind some fake currency of "gems" or "bucks".
Do you see anything wrong with that?
"wont someone think of the children" is also a very poor argument. . .
So your argument is that no-one should think of the children?
There might be a lot of room to argue whether parents should think of the children, or all adults collectively should think of the children, but clearly someone must think of them and set them limits.
In my opinion here the one to set limits should be government, because limiting children shouldn't be too restrictive. A government can create situation where a parent is able to allow child the freedom to spend pocket money without supervision, and still have hard time trying to buy lootboxes, whereas if it's left completely up to the parents the parents would need to apply US style extreme restrictions and ban the child from using money.
Turning to government to create the control we, both collectively and, in the main, individually seem unable or unwilling to exercise is inevitably going to lead to unintended consequences. We want government to "clean up" the mess, a mess we blame on everyone but ourselves, but inevitably that control we're asking for isn't going to just limit other people's "bad" choices, but also limit your choices in ways you (in the general, not specific) aren't going to like and aren't going to be able to adequately predict beforehand.
To me, this is honestly just a very poor argument. Not sure who the "we" you mention is, but it sure as heck isn't ME.
Here is what I said in the OP: My own take continues to be that they need to give ADULT consumers the information to make informed decisions and then those ADULTS should be able to do what they want. It is also my opinion that these absolutely should be restricted from CHILDREN. Just as Alcohol is restricted. No marketing games to kids and then hiding gambling boxes behind some fake currency of "gems" or "bucks".
Do you see anything wrong with that?
"wont someone think of the children" is also a very poor argument. . .
So your argument is that no-one should think of the children?
There might be a lot of room to argue whether parents should think of the children, or all adults collectively should think of the children, but clearly someone must think of them and set them limits.
In my opinion here the one to set limits should be government, because limiting children shouldn't be too restrictive. A government can create situation where a parent is able to allow child the freedom to spend pocket money without supervision, and still have hard time trying to buy lootboxes, whereas if it's left completely up to the parents the parents would need to apply US style extreme restrictions and ban the child from using money.
Well that already in place isnt it ..
First most of these games by Govt ESRP have standards set up ..
Up to the parent to enforce it ..
And if you decide to let them you need to set it up so they cant spend , or monitor enough to be sure they dont..
My 7 year old loves Fortnite i let him play(if he asks) everynite , he Knows he Must ask to spend any of those V-bucks and would not dare do so without .. its called parenting ...
He also knows if hes doing well in school , finished his schoolwork and eating his meals , i most likely grin and say yes to wahtever silly Pink Bear outfit thing he wants to get .. If he has been good ..
I find it a problem there are many people who spend hundreds of dollars and "still" not getting the item they want from the loot box.
Too often I read P2W games forum and see people complaining about buying loot box after loot box trying to get a specific items and after hundreds of dollar they still didn't get it.
That being said, many people lost all their savings in vegas. I never hear people loss all their money from loot box. So the severity is quite diffierent. I do hear people who spend hundred of thousands dollar on loot box before though. But usually those people are rich enough to afford it.
Just because the rewards aren't cash, that doesn't mean it's not gambling. If current laws don't properly treat this as gambling then the laws need to change.
Even GGG uses these things to take advantage of players
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
But in real world gambling the chance of getting nothing is enormous.
Lootboxes always give you something of value - not the prized 1/1000 item that you are looking for but you get something useful - like crafting mats, etc...
So lootboxes are more of RNG buying - if lootboxes had 99% chance of giving you nothing - it would be more like gambling.
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
99% chance of getting nothing? Lol... maybe if all you play are slot machines.
Always get something decent? that's a matter of opinion. Personally I don't see a lot of value added in paying $5 for a couple XP potions.
Personally I call that, getting rooked.
Technically, you can all but guarantee about a 50% win rate if you just play red/black at the roulette table all night.
Casinos don't make money and keep people there by making them lose 99% of the hands/rounds they play.
Just because the rewards aren't cash, that doesn't mean it's not gambling. If current laws don't properly treat this as gambling then the laws need to change.
Even GGG uses these things to take advantage of players
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
But in real world gambling the chance of getting nothing is enormous.
Lootboxes always give you something of value - not the prized 1/1000 item that you are looking for but you get something useful - like crafting mats, etc...
So lootboxes are more of RNG buying - if lootboxes had 99% chance of giving you nothing - it would be more like gambling.
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
99% chance of getting nothing? Lol... maybe if all you play are slot machines.
Always get something decent? that's a matter of opinion. Personally I don't see a lot of value added in paying $5 for a couple XP potions.
Personally I call that, getting rooked.
Technically, you can all but guarantee about a 50% win rate if you just play red/black at the roulette table all night.
Casinos don't make money and keep people there by making them lose 99% of the hands/rounds they play.
If memory serves me right Blackjack holds the best odds, I believe the house has a 1% edge in Blackjack.
Just because the rewards aren't cash, that doesn't mean it's not gambling. If current laws don't properly treat this as gambling then the laws need to change.
Even GGG uses these things to take advantage of players
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
But in real world gambling the chance of getting nothing is enormous.
Lootboxes always give you something of value - not the prized 1/1000 item that you are looking for but you get something useful - like crafting mats, etc...
So lootboxes are more of RNG buying - if lootboxes had 99% chance of giving you nothing - it would be more like gambling.
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
99% chance of getting nothing? Lol... maybe if all you play are slot machines.
Always get something decent? that's a matter of opinion. Personally I don't see a lot of value added in paying $5 for a couple XP potions.
Personally I call that, getting rooked.
Technically, you can all but guarantee about a 50% win rate if you just play red/black at the roulette table all night.
Casinos don't make money and keep people there by making them lose 99% of the hands/rounds they play.
If memory serves me right Blackjack holds the best odds, I believe the house has a 1% edge in Blackjack.
Makes sense. I read an article about a year back that included the top 5 best odds, and I remember Roulette being on there for the black/red bet. I don't remember the other 4 they listed.
really if you ask me just put any game with a loot box with RL money on it a 18+ game and move on, banning it will not make it disapear, they will just change face, or just sell outright powers, but making games who otherwise was marked with a E become mature, that maybe will make then rethink the whole loot box, and in that regard you can just put on anything with is extra with add no content to the game
Just because the rewards aren't cash, that doesn't mean it's not gambling. If current laws don't properly treat this as gambling then the laws need to change.
Even GGG uses these things to take advantage of players
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
But in real world gambling the chance of getting nothing is enormous.
Lootboxes always give you something of value - not the prized 1/1000 item that you are looking for but you get something useful - like crafting mats, etc...
So lootboxes are more of RNG buying - if lootboxes had 99% chance of giving you nothing - it would be more like gambling.
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
99% chance of getting nothing? Lol... maybe if all you play are slot machines.
Always get something decent? that's a matter of opinion. Personally I don't see a lot of value added in paying $5 for a couple XP potions.
Personally I call that, getting rooked.
Technically, you can all but guarantee about a 50% win rate if you just play red/black at the roulette table all night.
Casinos don't make money and keep people there by making them lose 99% of the hands/rounds they play.
If memory serves me right Blackjack holds the best odds, I believe the house has a 1% edge in Blackjack.
Makes sense. I read an article about a year back that included the top 5 best odds, and I remember Roulette being on there for the black/red bet. I don't remember the other 4 they listed.
i won 4300 $ playing Roulette long ago .. was a great nite
Just because the rewards aren't cash, that doesn't mean it's not gambling. If current laws don't properly treat this as gambling then the laws need to change.
Even GGG uses these things to take advantage of players
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
But in real world gambling the chance of getting nothing is enormous.
Lootboxes always give you something of value - not the prized 1/1000 item that you are looking for but you get something useful - like crafting mats, etc...
So lootboxes are more of RNG buying - if lootboxes had 99% chance of giving you nothing - it would be more like gambling.
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
99% chance of getting nothing? Lol... maybe if all you play are slot machines.
Always get something decent? that's a matter of opinion. Personally I don't see a lot of value added in paying $5 for a couple XP potions.
Personally I call that, getting rooked.
Technically, you can all but guarantee about a 50% win rate if you just play red/black at the roulette table all night.
Casinos don't make money and keep people there by making them lose 99% of the hands/rounds they play.
If memory serves me right Blackjack holds the best odds, I believe the house has a 1% edge in Blackjack.
Makes sense. I read an article about a year back that included the top 5 best odds, and I remember Roulette being on there for the black/red bet. I don't remember the other 4 they listed.
i won 4300 $ playing Roulette long ago .. was a great nite
I've never been a huge fan of gambling itself, but I gotta hand it to casinos- they are really good at making sure you have a great time. The banter across the tables (including with the dealers), the drinks poured freely, the overall atmosphere... Take the "I lost a ton of money" away, and it's essentially just an all night party.
Just because the rewards aren't cash, that doesn't mean it's not gambling. If current laws don't properly treat this as gambling then the laws need to change.
Even GGG uses these things to take advantage of players
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
But in real world gambling the chance of getting nothing is enormous.
Lootboxes always give you something of value - not the prized 1/1000 item that you are looking for but you get something useful - like crafting mats, etc...
So lootboxes are more of RNG buying - if lootboxes had 99% chance of giving you nothing - it would be more like gambling.
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
99% chance of getting nothing? Lol... maybe if all you play are slot machines.
Always get something decent? that's a matter of opinion. Personally I don't see a lot of value added in paying $5 for a couple XP potions.
Personally I call that, getting rooked.
Technically, you can all but guarantee about a 50% win rate if you just play red/black at the roulette table all night.
Casinos don't make money and keep people there by making them lose 99% of the hands/rounds they play.
If memory serves me right Blackjack holds the best odds, I believe the house has a 1% edge in Blackjack.
Makes sense. I read an article about a year back that included the top 5 best odds, and I remember Roulette being on there for the black/red bet. I don't remember the other 4 they listed.
i won 4300 $ playing Roulette long ago .. was a great nite
I've never been a huge fan of gambling itself, but I gotta hand it to casinos- they are really good at making sure you have a great time. The banter across the tables (including with the dealers), the drinks poured freely, the overall atmosphere... Take the "I lost a ton of money" away, and it's essentially just an all night party.
The only reason i was at the roulette table is because drinks were free there ..
I didnt know that , Was my first time in a casino , I had just gotten out of Jail , was in a year and 1/2 , Turned 21 while in ..
When i got out a couple friends took me for a week to Paradise Island , was such a great time ..Anyhow i was getting drinks from the barmaid just walking around the Casino , after she had brought me my 3rd drink i said , Dam these are expensive and she tells me.. Drinks are free at the Tables !!!
SO sat down a t Roulette putting 1$ chips down and drinking for free.. Before i knew it i had a pile of chips and was laying down bigger bets .. Was so much fun ...
Just because the rewards aren't cash, that doesn't mean it's not gambling. If current laws don't properly treat this as gambling then the laws need to change.
Even GGG uses these things to take advantage of players
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
But in real world gambling the chance of getting nothing is enormous.
Lootboxes always give you something of value - not the prized 1/1000 item that you are looking for but you get something useful - like crafting mats, etc...
So lootboxes are more of RNG buying - if lootboxes had 99% chance of giving you nothing - it would be more like gambling.
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
I don't think that matters that you "win" every time. It is not the same as a slot machine, but not all forms of gambling is a slot machine.
A better comparison is trading card and rare cards. Those have been trageted at kids for years. Some cards have high real life value. Is it any more exploitive to buy cards or mounts in a game?
My own take continues to be that they need to give ADULT consumers the information to make informed decisions and then those ADULTS should be able to do what they want. It is also my opinion that these absolutely should be restricted from CHILDREN. Just as Alcohol is restricted. No marketing games to kids and then hiding gambling boxes behind some fake currency of "gems" or "bucks".
The real flaw to your logic is in assuming that the person being "informed" has a brain to begin with.
Lest we forget, phrases like "Warning: Coffee is hot" is for all those people who need to be informed about the obvious, and even when "informed," they still are shocked that the coffee is hot when they proceed to dump it all over themselves.
1. You ordered hot coffee. 2. You spilled the coffee on yourself. 3. You need a warning label to tell you the coffee you just ordered is hot. 4. You also need a warning label to tell you not to pour said hot coffee all over yourself.
These are the people you are attempting to save from their own stupidity.
Do you really think educating them on the obvious will change a damn thing?
Turning to government to create the control we, both collectively and, in the main, individually seem unable or unwilling to exercise is inevitably going to lead to unintended consequences. We want government to "clean up" the mess, a mess we blame on everyone but ourselves, but inevitably that control we're asking for isn't going to just limit other people's "bad" choices, but also limit your choices in ways you (in the general, not specific) aren't going to like and aren't going to be able to adequately predict beforehand.
To me, this is honestly just a very poor argument. Not sure who the "we" you mention is, but it sure as heck isn't ME.
Here is what I said in the OP: My own take continues to be that they need to give ADULT consumers the information to make informed decisions and then those ADULTS should be able to do what they want. It is also my opinion that these absolutely should be restricted from CHILDREN. Just as Alcohol is restricted. No marketing games to kids and then hiding gambling boxes behind some fake currency of "gems" or "bucks".
Do you see anything wrong with that?
Parent's should police their own household, not the government. I think lockboxes are just companies being greedy but people also shun subscription models....
My own take continues to be that they need to give ADULT consumers the information to make informed decisions and then those ADULTS should be able to do what they want. It is also my opinion that these absolutely should be restricted from CHILDREN. Just as Alcohol is restricted. No marketing games to kids and then hiding gambling boxes behind some fake currency of "gems" or "bucks".
The real flaw to your logic is in assuming that the person being "informed" has a brain to begin with.
Lest we forget, phrases like "Warning: Coffee is hot" is for all those people who need to be informed about the obvious, and even when "informed," they still are shocked that the coffee is hot when they proceed to dump it all over themselves.
1. You ordered hot coffee. 2. You spilled the coffee on yourself. 3. You need a warning label to tell you the coffee you just ordered is hot. 4. You also need a warning label to tell you not to pour said hot coffee all over yourself.
These are the people you are attempting to save from their own stupidity.
Do you really think educating them on the obvious will change a damn thing?
The "Warning: Coffee is hot" is to protect one from liability.
Comments
And this is a preprint which means this research might have 0 value. The design and the method is questionable, but as I said I can't get into it and you shouldn't take my word for it. Let's see which journal would publish it first and if gets cited at all. Otherwise you can find similar unpublished research to 'prove' almost everything, specially when it comes down to human and social sciences.
And last but least, the authors are computer scientists. So again it is a bit of a stretch when they decided to write about complex human behavior.
But, I can be wrong. I'll give it a proper read and will let you know if my stance changes.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
Good point though: they are a different kind of thing that differentiates them from all-or-nothing gambling games. And those all or nothing games are the ones we usually think of when we think about gambling.
But that's just one type of gambling. There is nothing in the standard dictionary definition of gambling ( the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes) that excludes the way loot boxes work from also being considered another type of gambling.
Also "always get something decent" is a bit of a stretch for some games unless you're really, really easy to please.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Fortnite Cited in Over 200 UK Divorce Court Cases - Game Rant
It's an extreme but my point would be that their are degrees of gaming addiction that make it harder for some people to pay their bills or even keep their job.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Always get something decent? that's a matter of opinion. Personally I don't see a lot of value added in paying $5 for a couple XP potions.
Personally I call that, getting rooked.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
There might be a lot of room to argue whether parents should think of the children, or all adults collectively should think of the children, but clearly someone must think of them and set them limits.
In my opinion here the one to set limits should be government, because limiting children shouldn't be too restrictive. A government can create situation where a parent is able to allow child the freedom to spend pocket money without supervision, and still have hard time trying to buy lootboxes, whereas if it's left completely up to the parents the parents would need to apply US style extreme restrictions and ban the child from using money.
Too often I read P2W games forum and see people complaining about buying loot box after loot box trying to get a specific items and after hundreds of dollar they still didn't get it.
That being said, many people lost all their savings in vegas. I never hear people loss all their money from loot box. So the severity is quite diffierent. I do hear people who spend hundred of thousands dollar on loot box before though. But usually those people are rich enough to afford it.
Casinos don't make money and keep people there by making them lose 99% of the hands/rounds they play.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
A better comparison is trading card and rare cards. Those have been trageted at kids for years. Some cards have high real life value. Is it any more exploitive to buy cards or mounts in a game?
Lest we forget, phrases like "Warning: Coffee is hot" is for all those people who need to be informed about the obvious, and even when "informed," they still are shocked that the coffee is hot when they proceed to dump it all over themselves.
1. You ordered hot coffee.
2. You spilled the coffee on yourself.
3. You need a warning label to tell you the coffee you just ordered is hot.
4. You also need a warning label to tell you not to pour said hot coffee all over yourself.
These are the people you are attempting to save from their own stupidity.
Do you really think educating them on the obvious will change a damn thing?
Just ask the Tobacco industry about liability.
Maybe the video game industry should take notice.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee