What you're describing with your two obscure games, if true, is anything but typical.
They don't want to tell you the odds because then you'll think about the odds instead of impulse buying without thought like they want you to.
"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
laserit said: You can't even debate on the context.
...that is all context you provided in your post - you don't like loot boxes, therefore they should be regulated.
That all this 'debate' boils down to.
Actually with all the ongoing international government attention this type of monetization has garnered over the last couple years. I would suggest that the debate boils down to a lot more than : "you don't like loot boxes, therefore they should be regulated"
It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
Regulation doesn't mean loot boxes will be banned, it means there will be rules around their implementation and marketing.
And that's got nothing whatsoever to do with how you or I feel about it.
Now you can press the lol to your heart's content, it doesn't change the fact that multiple governments internationally are contemplating regulation as we speak.
Now you can press the lol to your heart's content, it doesn't change the fact that multiple governments internationally are contemplating regulation as we speak.
...of course they are, it is their job to please the feeble minded masses, no matter how stupid their requests are.
They're the reason the country has to put directions on shampoo.
I need to write up a hard hitting expose on what mashed potatoes and chicken tendies have done to this poor man's physiology. They've preyed upon his utter lack of physicality and the void where his dietary discipline is supposed to be. Truly, capitalism strikes again.
(I.E. People have no agency and aren't accountable for their own choices?)
Predatory practices are the focus here, throwing out a blanket statement about "accountability" could be used to contest anything. "Well you didn't have your dinner tested for poison before you ate it, that's on you bro....."
Your basically stating that drug dealers are cool, let them do their thing, the real problem here is the people buying drugs.
No body is losing their home, or burying themselves in debit by eating to many nuggets.
They don't want to tell you the odds because then you'll think about the odds instead of impulse buying without thought like they want you to.
...yeah, just like 40% of americans think whether they should get a pack of cheetos once they see the nutrition table on the package.
It works wonders.
If like you say, it makes absolutely no difference why did it take a government forcing them to do it before they did it? Way to destroy your own fucking argument lol.
"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
If like you say, it makes absolutely no difference why did it take a government forcing them to do it before they did it? Way to destroy your own fucking argument lol.
...so people like you feel there is something being done about it.
laserit said: You can't even debate on the context.
...that is all context you provided in your post - you don't like loot boxes, therefore they should be regulated.
That all this 'debate' boils down to.
Actually with all the ongoing international government attention this type of monetization has garnered over the last couple years. I would suggest that the debate boils down to a lot more than : "you don't like loot boxes, therefore they should be regulated"
It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
Regulation doesn't mean loot boxes will be banned, it means there will be rules around their implementation and marketing.
And that's got nothing whatsoever to do with how you or I feel about it.
Now you can press the lol to your heart's content, it doesn't change the fact that multiple governments internationally are contemplating regulation as we speak.
And thats good news , we have a lot of weak people who need to be regulated and have there hands held and guided thru this vicious cut throat gaming world .. The life altering horrors that prey on the weak ..
If a person cannot manage to sit in there own house and play a game without becoming a fucking victim FFS , they got what they deserve ...
These canned responses repeating the same thing makes it feel like those arguing against regulations just don't care what the actual situation is. It's like those nuts that think all things government = totalitarian rule and will take away your rights to go to the bathroom when you want.
If like you say, it makes absolutely no difference why did it take a government forcing them to do it before they did it? Way to destroy your own fucking argument lol.
...so people like you feel there is something being done about it.
That's not the point. If it makes no difference why do they not volunteer the information before being forced?
I don;t give a shit about what the Chinese did or didn't do.
The question is why did Riot and all the others not give out that information before they were forced to do it.?
Do you have the mental acuity to understand the difference between your kneejerk "appease the masses" quip and companies deliberately withholding the info for... "reasons"?
"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
As usual. You've got nothing. You like to pose as a thinker when you're not and we all know it lol.
"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
Now you can press the lol to your heart's content, it doesn't change the fact that multiple governments internationally are contemplating regulation as we speak.
...of course they are, it is their job to please the feeble minded masses, no matter how stupid their requests are.
They're the reason the country has to put directions on shampoo.
It is called politics.
You prefer a despot or an autocrat?
The directions on the shampoo bottle keeps the lawyers at bay.
You misunderstand me. I in no way I deny the right of stupids to rule the world, that is how democracy works and I respect that, however your argument was simply flawed and I pointed that out.
While Jimbo can be annoying with his stubborn idealism and screechy voices, he is a very important player in this Arena. I often agree with him, but he can be quite long winded.
Regardless, I don't want gvts to get involved, but something has to be done about corps preying on little children with their gotcha casino schemes. It's one thing to swindle a grown man(weak willed as he might be), to swindle a 10y old is...really low.
The 10 year old Cannot be swindled without a stupid Adult behind the KB ...
Altho i agree we dont need need regulations , People cannot count on others protecting them , if they do they have already lost ..
Your best protection is yourself in every single one of these scenarios ..
And Regulations are very ineffective .. they are more just lip service ..
No cigarette smoker Ever quit because of regulations ..They quit because of there own failing health or friend/family failing health
No drinker Ever quit because of Regulations .. " Hiccup ohh i better not have this drink , there are new Regulations" lmao
No Heroin addict ever quit because of regulations ...
No Gamer that has/or will spend excessivley on Loot Boxes will stop because of regulations ..
In all these situations people that do stop, do it of there own accord(of realiziation of wanting better) and taking control of there life , or because of failing health/Finances/Death , Never has anyone stopped there addictive habits because of Regulations .. People will get what they want either way
And the example of regulations effects on smoking is very borked , as Vaping as taken its place in insane numbers , kids being a huge market (and the negative effects of that are just being learned ) , and the legalization of Marijuana also has cut into tobacco sales ..
No cigarette smoker Ever quit because of regulations...
Let's just call this one out for a moment, as we actually have some hard data on it that has already been discussed. CDC even has charts showing that tobacco regulations and subsequent smoking among adults has dropped in the last 30 years from half of all adults, down to ~14%.
Do you mean to say over a quarter of the nation just had changes of heart around this, and that the regulations that were established leading into the cataloged decline if it's prevalence have no causal relation?
The same can be brought up about every other example there.
Again, it's not like regulations are made to make you stop doing something on a personal level in the first place. It's reducing the ability for someone to exploit another's vices or suffering for profit. The regulations, as a result of this, does lead to a decline in usage of such things in direct part because there are many that are simply no longer bombarded with advertising or other practices pressuring them to do something they don't actually care that much for.
No cigarette smoker Ever quit because of regulations...
Let's just call this one out for a moment, as we actually have some hard data on it that has already been discussed. CDC even has charts showing that tobacco regulations and subsequent smoking among adults has dropped in the last 30 years from half of all adults, down to ~14%.
Do you mean to say over a quarter of the nation just had changes of heart around this, and that the regulations that were established leading into the cataloged decline if it's prevalence have no causal relation?
The same can be brought up about every other example there.
Again, it's not like regulations are made to make you stop doing something on a personal level in the first place. It's reducing the ability for someone to exploit another's vices or suffering for profit. The regulations, as a result of this, does lead to a decline in usage of such things in direct part because there are many that are simply no longer bombarded with advertising or other practices pressuring them to do something they don't actually care that much for.
And Vaping and Weed sales are directly attached to that ..
But that does not change the fact , that you cannot find one single person who quit any of there addcitive habits because of Regualtions ..
Regualtions did not stop anyone from smoking ,.. Making people aware of the bad effects of smoking did , This is not regulatory at all .. Just common sense
Introducing the masses to Vaping and promoting it as a safe alternative to smoking is the biggest contributor to smoking sales dropping .. But a safe alternative seems to be question these days ... But the weak and stupid fell right into that one to , in 20 years they will all be breathing oxygen thru a tube ..
No cigarette smoker Ever quit because of regulations...
Let's just call this one out for a moment, as we actually have some hard data on it that has already been discussed. CDC even has charts showing that tobacco regulations and subsequent smoking among adults has dropped in the last 30 years from half of all adults, down to ~14%.
Do you mean to say over a quarter of the nation just had changes of heart around this, and that the regulations that were established leading into the cataloged decline if it's prevalence have no causal relation?
The same can be brought up about every other example there.
Again, it's not like regulations are made to make you stop doing something on a personal level in the first place. It's reducing the ability for someone to exploit another's vices or suffering for profit. The regulations, as a result of this, does lead to a decline in usage of such things in direct part because there are many that are simply no longer bombarded with advertising or other practices pressuring them to do something they don't actually care that much for.
And Vaping and Weed sales are directly attached to that ..
But that does not change the fact , that you cannot find one single person who quit any of there addcitive habits because of Regualtions ..
Regualtions did not stop anyone from smoking .. Making people aware of the bad effects of smoking did , This is not regulatory at all .. Just common sense
That's painfully far removed from the truth. Should we start removing all the support groups, healthcare professionals, medical assistance, etc that has all been ushered in through regulations then?
Suddenly a massive chunk of that support structure you take for granted when you try to stop smoking "by yourself" disappears. Same case with other forms of drug and alcohol abuse.
No cigarette smoker Ever quit because of regulations...
Let's just call this one out for a moment, as we actually have some hard data on it that has already been discussed. CDC even has charts showing that tobacco regulations and subsequent smoking among adults has dropped in the last 30 years from half of all adults, down to ~14%.
Do you mean to say over a quarter of the nation just had changes of heart around this, and that the regulations that were established leading into the cataloged decline if it's prevalence have no causal relation?
The same can be brought up about every other example there.
Again, it's not like regulations are made to make you stop doing something on a personal level in the first place. It's reducing the ability for someone to exploit another's vices or suffering for profit. The regulations, as a result of this, does lead to a decline in usage of such things in direct part because there are many that are simply no longer bombarded with advertising or other practices pressuring them to do something they don't actually care that much for.
And Vaping and Weed sales are directly attached to that ..
But that does not change the fact , that you cannot find one single person who quit any of there addcitive habits because of Regualtions ..
Regualtions did not stop anyone from smoking .. Making people aware of the bad effects of smoking did , This is not regulatory at all .. Just common sense
That's painfully far removed from the truth. Should we start removing all the support groups, healthcare professionals, medical assistance, etc that has all been ushered in through regulations then?
Suddenly a massive chunk of that support structure you take for granted when you try to stop smoking "by yourself" disappears. Same case with other forms of drug and alcohol abuse.
Those are not regulations at all , those are voluntary public or goverment/priavatley funded education and awareness ..
and all Volunteer programs for those who realize they need help , in taking the first steps back into being strong and taking control of there life .. Thx for Confirming what really works for addictions .. Its self awareness and realiztion of a bad habit , not regulations that get people thru
Regulations are laws ya know ..
Like i said ..
No addict of any of these vices games included Ever said ...
"Man , these Goverment Regulations are getting tuff , im going to quit"
Addicts dont give a rats ass about regulations , they dont care are oblivious or dont even blink at them ..
No cigarette smoker Ever quit because of regulations...
Let's just call this one out for a moment, as we actually have some hard data on it that has already been discussed. CDC even has charts showing that tobacco regulations and subsequent smoking among adults has dropped in the last 30 years from half of all adults, down to ~14%.
Do you mean to say over a quarter of the nation just had changes of heart around this, and that the regulations that were established leading into the cataloged decline if it's prevalence have no causal relation?
The same can be brought up about every other example there.
Again, it's not like regulations are made to make you stop doing something on a personal level in the first place. It's reducing the ability for someone to exploit another's vices or suffering for profit. The regulations, as a result of this, does lead to a decline in usage of such things in direct part because there are many that are simply no longer bombarded with advertising or other practices pressuring them to do something they don't actually care that much for.
And Vaping and Weed sales are directly attached to that ..
But that does not change the fact , that you cannot find one single person who quit any of there addcitive habits because of Regualtions ..
Regualtions did not stop anyone from smoking .. Making people aware of the bad effects of smoking did , This is not regulatory at all .. Just common sense
That's painfully far removed from the truth. Should we start removing all the support groups, healthcare professionals, medical assistance, etc that has all been ushered in through regulations then?
Suddenly a massive chunk of that support structure you take for granted when you try to stop smoking "by yourself" disappears. Same case with other forms of drug and alcohol abuse.
Those are not regulations at all , those are voluntary public or goverment/priavatley funded education and awareness ..
and all voluntary
Regulations are laws ya know ..
You do realize why those government funded and social systems exist right?
Because maintaining certain standards around healthcare as it relates to them, and services being demanded from the companies themselves that profit from them, are part of those regulations.
Yes, regulations are laws. And laws don't do only one single finite form of action. They are used to enact a wide berth of policies, from simple things to sweeping ones.
Comments
That's the only one I've been exposed to and it's from a well known and massive AAA studio.
Many games revealed the odds only after China forced them to with legislation: https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/2/15517962/china-new-law-dota-league-of-legends-odds-loot-box-random
What you're describing with your two obscure games, if true, is anything but typical.
They don't want to tell you the odds because then you'll think about the odds instead of impulse buying without thought like they want you to.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
It works wonders.
It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
Regulation doesn't mean loot boxes will be banned, it means there will be rules around their implementation and marketing.
And that's got nothing whatsoever to do with how you or I feel about it.
Now you can press the lol to your heart's content, it doesn't change the fact that multiple governments internationally are contemplating regulation as we speak.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
They're the reason the country has to put directions on shampoo.
It is called politics.
Your basically stating that drug dealers are cool, let them do their thing, the real problem here is the people buying drugs.
No body is losing their home, or burying themselves in debit by eating to many nuggets.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I don;t give a shit about what the Chinese did or didn't do.
The question is why did Riot and all the others not give out that information before they were forced to do it.?
Do you have the mental acuity to understand the difference between your kneejerk "appease the masses" quip and companies deliberately withholding the info for... "reasons"?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Except, y'know, when it does, like how we demonstrated with tobacco regulations previously.
You are just full of empty rhetorics.
The directions on the shampoo bottle keeps the lawyers at bay.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
You misunderstand me. I in no way I deny the right of stupids to rule the world, that is how democracy works and I respect that, however your argument was simply flawed and I pointed that out.
Also, fixed your typo.
Do you mean to say over a quarter of the nation just had changes of heart around this, and that the regulations that were established leading into the cataloged decline if it's prevalence have no causal relation?
The same can be brought up about every other example there.
Again, it's not like regulations are made to make you stop doing something on a personal level in the first place. It's reducing the ability for someone to exploit another's vices or suffering for profit. The regulations, as a result of this, does lead to a decline in usage of such things in direct part because there are many that are simply no longer bombarded with advertising or other practices pressuring them to do something they don't actually care that much for.
Suddenly a massive chunk of that support structure you take for granted when you try to stop smoking "by yourself" disappears. Same case with other forms of drug and alcohol abuse.
Because maintaining certain standards around healthcare as it relates to them, and services being demanded from the companies themselves that profit from them, are part of those regulations.
Yes, regulations are laws. And laws don't do only one single finite form of action. They are used to enact a wide berth of policies, from simple things to sweeping ones.