If some person has gambling addiction (or any other kind of addiction) - that person should get a proper medical help and restrict himself/herself from playing online games completely. Other people shouldn't lose an option to enjoy such activity in a responsible way just because of small amount of people with addiction issues.. and enjoy them in a responsible manner even if an extreme minority of people cannot enjoy that in a responsible way and can develop an unhealthy .....
Same awesome excuse we use here in the United States to keep purchasing assault rifles legal, well played sir.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
If some person has gambling addiction (or any other kind of addiction) - that person should get a proper medical help and restrict himself/herself from playing online games completely. Other people shouldn't lose an option to enjoy such activity in a responsible way just because of small amount of people with addiction issues.. and enjoy them in a responsible manner even if an extreme minority of people cannot enjoy that in a responsible way and can develop an unhealthy .....
Same awesome excuse we use here in the United States to keep purchasing assault rifles legal, well played sir.
Addiction isn't the usual reason why people buy guns.
If some person has gambling addiction (or any other kind of addiction) - that person should get a proper medical help and restrict himself/herself from playing online games completely. Other people shouldn't lose an option to enjoy such activity in a responsible way just because of small amount of people with addiction issues.. and enjoy them in a responsible manner even if an extreme minority of people cannot enjoy that in a responsible way and can develop an unhealthy .....
Same awesome excuse we use here in the United States to keep purchasing assault rifles legal, well played sir.
Addiction isn't the usual reason why people buy guns.
I'd say fear is, and we've got a huge swathe of folks who are addicted to fear in this country.
If some person has gambling addiction (or any other kind of addiction) - that person should get a proper medical help and restrict himself/herself from playing online games completely. Other people shouldn't lose an option to enjoy such activity in a responsible way just because of small amount of people with addiction issues.. and enjoy them in a responsible manner even if an extreme minority of people cannot enjoy that in a responsible way and can develop an unhealthy .....
Same awesome excuse we use here in the United States to keep purchasing assault rifles legal, well played sir.
Addiction isn't the usual reason why people buy guns.
Right. The addiction comes afterward.
I know a neighbor, he has a gun under each cushion of his sofa. "Just in case".........
As an addition, the legislation is NOT about allowing gambling in games or not (before we get into another ‘the government is ruining my freedom as an adult’ debate). It is about the way the gambling is presented (cute fluffy game looking like it is for young girls that is all about the lootboxes only with said game just being a storefront), the not disclosing of odds (going in completely blind while not being able to find out you actually have a 0.0003% chance of getting anything) or the downright obfuscating of the fact that you are indeed gambling (use real money to buy coins, win crystals with these coins and then use these crystals on lootboxes, pretty colors included). There is also of course the downright stimulation to do stuff, timers, sales, winners getting broadcasted in games etc.
Companies have entire teams looking at how to make it all as profitable as possible (which is fine) while also looking at how to mask and hide the gambling and spending as efficiently as possible for everyone playing their game, adult or not (which is not fine).
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Read an article a couple of days ago. Seems like more EU countries had a meeting about loot boxes. So my guess is more countries will join in the ban.
Should ofc link said article. But can not for the life of me remember where I read it. Think it was in Norwegian anyways.
I am a scizo misanthrope. So one day I may go BANZAI on your post. Have not yet though. Maybe there is hope? Nah there is really none for me or the human race.
If some person has gambling addiction (or any other kind of addiction) - that person should get a proper medical help and restrict himself/herself from playing online games completely. Other people shouldn't lose an option to enjoy such activity in a responsible way just because of small amount of people with addiction issues.. and enjoy them in a responsible manner even if an extreme minority of people cannot enjoy that in a responsible way and can develop an unhealthy .....
Same awesome excuse we use here in the United States to keep purchasing assault rifles legal, well played sir.
Addiction isn't the usual reason why people buy guns.
Yeah, you focused on the wrong part of my message, most likely intentionally, but change out the word addiction for control issues if it helps in understanding.
People often make the argument that if a majority of the adult population can control their own behaviors, whether it be drinking, smoking pot, gambling, purchasing semi-automatic weapons or even flamethrowers (which are legal to own btw) there is no reason for governments to put extra laws to restrict their use.
I actually agree with this viewpoint, live and let live, or die as is often the case with many vices, but also realize society sometimes feels the need to protect it's members from themselves, (or each other) for the greater good.
Where I live there are very strange going ons, where the government is working hard to "protect" the children from all sorts of what they deem is harmful indoctrination in schools, but doing very little to keep them safe from physical harm in them, all in the name of freedum.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
re: A, not sure what you're arguing here. Enforcement of one law is a problem, so gotta pass a broader law? If so, what's to prevent the new law from becoming problematic to enforce too?
re: B, a government finding a monetization or marketing scheme "distasteful" is a very poor and problematic basis to ban it. Such a basis is extremely open-ended and can capture just about any scheme in existence. As long as someone finds it "distasteful". This of course ignores the whole question whether such bans are effective. History shows they tend to be counter-productive.
Noticed also that you didn't respond to the evidentiary/harm basis for an in-game gambling ban.
Interesting to note about the decline in tobacco use, especially among the young, has occurred during a period of increased e-cigarette use. And yet, for many of the same reasons given to ban in-game gambling - for the children! - we're witnessing efforts to ban e-cigarettes.
I have no idea what you mean by "The video game ban is also an economic decision, at least in part." Have a source for this claim?
False. The decline in tobacco use was ongoing way before the advent of e-cigarettes. Unless you want to claim e-cigarettes somehow started affecting tobacco trends in the 70s. Society identified something that was affecting it in unhealthy ways, and regulated it with the intent of decreasing its usage, specifically among teens. The government is just the tool society used. That's what government *is*, lest you forget: merely a societal tool to effect change and order. It's made up of the citizens of the society it governs, at least in the U.S..
The regulation or ban of monetization schemes in video games is not at all like the push to ban violent video games.
The video game ban is focused on a monetization scheme, not the moral content of the video game. This is what I meant by economic decision. We're speaking of how the market presents the costs for these games to consumers, not that the digital pixels in-game formed a pentagon. Add in the recent rise in NFTs being included in games, and it's even more about an economic effect.
If some person has gambling addiction (or any other kind of addiction) - that person should get a proper medical help and restrict himself/herself from playing online games completely. Other people shouldn't lose an option to enjoy such activity in a responsible way just because of small amount of people with addiction issues.. and enjoy them in a responsible manner even if an extreme minority of people cannot enjoy that in a responsible way and can develop an unhealthy .....
Same awesome excuse we use here in the United States to keep purchasing assault rifles legal, well played sir.
Addiction isn't the usual reason why people buy guns.
Yeah, you focused on the wrong part of my message, most likely intentionally, but change out the word addiction for control issues if it helps in understanding.
People often make the argument that if a majority of the adult population can control their own behaviors, whether it be drinking, smoking pot, gambling, purchasing semi-automatic weapons or even flamethrowers (which are legal to own btw) there is no reason for governments to put extra laws to restrict their use.
I actually agree with this viewpoint, live and let live, or die as is often the case with many vices, but also realize society sometimes feels the need to protect it's members from themselves, (or each other) for the greater good.
Where I live there are very strange going ons, where the government is working hard to "protect" the children from all sorts of what they deem is harmful indoctrination in schools, but doing very little to keep them safe from physical harm in them, all in the name of freedum.
It's not as selfless as you think.
Whether you realize it or not, those people engaging in their vices *does* affect the rest of us, specifically when they do so at the expense of their livelihoods and health.
Many times, we as a society absorb the costs of poor decisions by our members. Even if they have no health insurance, if a member is repeatedly hospitalized due to their liver shutting down from alcohol abuse, society absorbs the cost. It does flow outwards to the rest of us, it doesn't just go poof! and disappear.
Similarly, if a lot of folks default on their mortgages in a short time, some banks fail, and the market reels, it affects the price of *your* house, too. It affects the value of *your* asset. We've all seen it.
It has been a long, long, *long* time since the well-being of individuals has not been intertwined in the aggregate. We all should take a better interest in how we govern ourselves due to this.
Can't you already envision the ads calling players to come play the game that is so awesome that it's banned in Belgium? Making something contraband often makes it more desirable.
If some person has gambling addiction (or any other kind of addiction) - that person should get a proper medical help and restrict himself/herself from playing online games completely. Other people shouldn't lose an option to enjoy such activity in a responsible way just because of small amount of people with addiction issues.. and enjoy them in a responsible manner even if an extreme minority of people cannot enjoy that in a responsible way and can develop an unhealthy .....
Same awesome excuse we use here in the United States to keep purchasing assault rifles legal, well played sir.
Addiction isn't the usual reason why people buy guns.
I'd say fear is, and we've got a huge swathe of folks who are addicted to fear in this country.
There are several common reasons why people buy guns. Some people collect them for whatever reason, which isn't really any weirder than collecting a lot of other things. Some people want to go hunting.
Yes, some people buy guns for self-defense. And you could argue that that's due to fear. But it's sometimes a completely rational fear knowing that you live in an area where there's a significant chance that you'll be targeted by a criminal.
Sure, fear is common. But different people fear different things, and if there's a correlation between fear and gun ownership, it's surely a weak one. I'd bet that American adults who are terrified of COVID are less likely to be gun owners than those who aren't afraid of COVID, if only because of the obvious correlation with political views.
Can't you already envision the ads calling players to come play the game that is so awesome that it's banned in Belgium? Making something contraband often makes it more desirable.
The game isn't banned, their predatory loot crate practices are. Remove those and the game can be published there no problem. This is not the same as a morality or cultural ban.
Moral contraband often sees a rise in adoption, like conservative book bannings. Financial regulation and regulating some practices to adults or those in an "age of consent" is not at all the same and has a lot more widespread acceptance. We don't see a lot of rebellious youth at race tracks trying to gamble because "The Man" told them not to. But, again, I think you know that already.
Bro, we meetin' in the school playground tonight to open some lootboxes or what?? I'm jonesin'!
If some person has gambling addiction (or any other kind of addiction) - that person should get a proper medical help and restrict himself/herself from playing online games completely. Other people shouldn't lose an option to enjoy such activity in a responsible way just because of small amount of people with addiction issues.. and enjoy them in a responsible manner even if an extreme minority of people cannot enjoy that in a responsible way and can develop an unhealthy .....
Same awesome excuse we use here in the United States to keep purchasing assault rifles legal, well played sir.
Addiction isn't the usual reason why people buy guns.
I'd say fear is, and we've got a huge swathe of folks who are addicted to fear in this country.
There are several common reasons why people buy guns. Some people collect them for whatever reason, which isn't really any weirder than collecting a lot of other things. Some people want to go hunting.
Yes, some people buy guns for self-defense. And you could argue that that's due to fear. But it's sometimes a completely rational fear knowing that you live in an area where there's a significant chance that you'll be targeted by a criminal.
Sure, fear is common. But different people fear different things, and if there's a correlation between fear and gun ownership, it's surely a weak one. I'd bet that American adults who are terrified of COVID are less likely to be gun owners than those who aren't afraid of COVID, if only because of the obvious correlation with political views.
The first point is definitely debatable. Collecting, say, body parts is not really considered a normal thing. It's considered morbid.
An unhealthy fascination with owning tools made for killing humans beings is just as morbid, we've just allowed society in the U.S. to foment a culture that intentionally misunderstands the nature of these objects and glamorizes them in an extremely unhealthy way. All because muh freedom.
If you went to someone's house and they filled it with old land mines 'cause the're just a HUGE fan, you'd rightfully call their house a hazard and think them a little less than wise.
Can't you already envision the ads calling players to come play the game that is so awesome that it's banned in Belgium? Making something contraband often makes it more desirable.
The game isn't banned, their predatory loot crate practices are. Remove those and the game can be published there no problem. This is not the same as a morality or cultural ban.
Moral contraband often sees a rise in adoption, like conservative book bannings. Financial regulation and regulating some practices to adults or those in an "age of consent" is not at all the same and has a lot more widespread acceptance. We don't see a lot of rebellious youth at race tracks trying to gamble because "The Man" told them not to. But, again, I think you know that already.
I'm not really arguing that it's right or wrong here. I'm not even arguing about whether such a marketing campaign would even work. But would you really be shocked to see see ads highlighting the fact that the game is banned in some places?
Can't you already envision the ads calling players to come play the game that is so awesome that it's banned in Belgium? Making something contraband often makes it more desirable.
The game isn't banned, their predatory loot crate practices are. Remove those and the game can be published there no problem. This is not the same as a morality or cultural ban.
Moral contraband often sees a rise in adoption, like conservative book bannings. Financial regulation and regulating some practices to adults or those in an "age of consent" is not at all the same and has a lot more widespread acceptance. We don't see a lot of rebellious youth at race tracks trying to gamble because "The Man" told them not to. But, again, I think you know that already.
I'm not really arguing that it's right or wrong here. I'm not even arguing about whether such a marketing campaign would even work. But would you really be shocked to see see ads highlighting the fact that the game is banned in some places?
For lootboxes? Yes.
It isn't like they're even wildly popular. Game of chance microtransactions weren't some secret yearning within gamers that some lucky publisher finally stumbled upon. They're just an uncapped revenue stream, which makes them attractive despite the fact that the majority of PC users dislike them.
I'd get the 'responsible gambling' argument, if the subject were "gambling games".
Problem being, is the game in question supposed to be an ARPG, or a casino game?
You don't need gambling in every game, it's best suited as it's own genre to begin with, and it's even better suited to the format where it's not about constant extraction of financial wealth.
Are people unable to enjoy gambling unless they got a financial stake in it? Do they have to 'enjoy' gambling in every title out there?
And where's the line drawn for impact on the rest of the game systems? "Don't like gambling, then don't gamble." Ok, sure, and when the gameplay you actually do want to engage in is stunted because of that, what's one to do?
About the only thing there is to do is the "then don't play it" solution. That's well and good up to the point that you still have a sufficient amount of people becoming dolphins and whales that it doesn't matter if anyone else is doing a sanity check.
They're not going to say, this is why it's banned. Of course not. But only, come play the game that they don't want you to see.
I think that psychological campaign is blunted in today's information age. It is easier to find an article on why it's banned than it is to find a way to download it.
Once they read it's banned because it includes microtransactions that, odds are, the person isn't even a big fan of, I don't see them going through the trouble.
Why would they go through the trouble when they can still play D3?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but iirc Belgium and Holland haven't banned lootboxes.
Everyone with any common sense (or the ability to read a dictionary) knows that lootboxes are gambling. But, most countries separate different gambling activities into gambling that requires regulation (like betting on the horses) and gambling that doesn't require regulation (like buying a pokemon card pack).
Belgium and Holland simply moved lootboxes from the unregulated category, into the regulated category.
So, Blizz could still sell Diablo Immortal in those countries if they wanted to, they would just need to update the game so that it complies with local gambling laws. That would likely mean age restrictions, gambling warnings, disclosing odds etc. Or they could just remove the lootboxes, like EA did with FIFA.
Blizz decided not to make those updates, so they can't sell their game.
This is the recent report on how bad lootboxes are. But, it's a report from consumer groups, so unlikely to have any real effect. That said, I'd be very happy if more countries followed Belgium's lead. Doing so doesn't ban lootboxes, it doesn't restrict individual freedom. It just requires devs to comply with gambling laws.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Comments
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'd say fear is, and we've got a huge swathe of folks who are addicted to fear in this country.
Right. The addiction comes afterward.
I know a neighbor, he has a gun under each cushion of his sofa. "Just in case".........
Companies have entire teams looking at how to make it all as profitable as possible (which is fine) while also looking at how to mask and hide the gambling and spending as efficiently as possible for everyone playing their game, adult or not (which is not fine).
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
So my guess is more countries will join in the ban.
Should ofc link said article. But can not for the life of me remember where I read it.
Think it was in Norwegian anyways.
Have not yet though. Maybe there is hope?
Nah there is really none for me or the human race.
People often make the argument that if a majority of the adult population can control their own behaviors, whether it be drinking, smoking pot, gambling, purchasing semi-automatic weapons or even flamethrowers (which are legal to own btw) there is no reason for governments to put extra laws to restrict their use.
I actually agree with this viewpoint, live and let live, or die as is often the case with many vices, but also realize society sometimes feels the need to protect it's members from themselves, (or each other) for the greater good.
Where I live there are very strange going ons, where the government is working hard to "protect" the children from all sorts of what they deem is harmful indoctrination in schools, but doing very little to keep them safe from physical harm in them, all in the name of freedum.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The regulation or ban of monetization schemes in video games is not at all like the push to ban violent video games.
The video game ban is focused on a monetization scheme, not the moral content of the video game. This is what I meant by economic decision. We're speaking of how the market presents the costs for these games to consumers, not that the digital pixels in-game formed a pentagon. Add in the recent rise in NFTs being included in games, and it's even more about an economic effect.
Whether you realize it or not, those people engaging in their vices *does* affect the rest of us, specifically when they do so at the expense of their livelihoods and health.
Many times, we as a society absorb the costs of poor decisions by our members. Even if they have no health insurance, if a member is repeatedly hospitalized due to their liver shutting down from alcohol abuse, society absorbs the cost. It does flow outwards to the rest of us, it doesn't just go poof! and disappear.
Similarly, if a lot of folks default on their mortgages in a short time, some banks fail, and the market reels, it affects the price of *your* house, too. It affects the value of *your* asset. We've all seen it.
It has been a long, long, *long* time since the well-being of individuals has not been intertwined in the aggregate. We all should take a better interest in how we govern ourselves due to this.
Yes, some people buy guns for self-defense. And you could argue that that's due to fear. But it's sometimes a completely rational fear knowing that you live in an area where there's a significant chance that you'll be targeted by a criminal.
Sure, fear is common. But different people fear different things, and if there's a correlation between fear and gun ownership, it's surely a weak one. I'd bet that American adults who are terrified of COVID are less likely to be gun owners than those who aren't afraid of COVID, if only because of the obvious correlation with political views.
An unhealthy fascination with owning tools made for killing humans beings is just as morbid, we've just allowed society in the U.S. to foment a culture that intentionally misunderstands the nature of these objects and glamorizes them in an extremely unhealthy way. All because muh freedom.
If you went to someone's house and they filled it with old land mines 'cause the're just a HUGE fan, you'd rightfully call their house a hazard and think them a little less than wise.
From the Netherlands
It isn't like they're even wildly popular. Game of chance microtransactions weren't some secret yearning within gamers that some lucky publisher finally stumbled upon. They're just an uncapped revenue stream, which makes them attractive despite the fact that the majority of PC users dislike them.
https://www.pocketgamer.biz/comment-and-opinion/76457/pickfu-data-gamers-attitude-loot-boxes/#:~:text=Loot boxes are liked more,and mobile (23%25)%20gamers.
(Above link gets broken by forum formatting, search lootboxes survey pocketgamer to find it)
Of those that purchase them, half report regretting the purchase. A majority of gamers also agree they are a form of gambling.
https://www.thegamer.com/gamers-survey-regret-loot-boxes/
I very much doubt it's a good selling point.
They also absolutely do work on the exact same psychological mechanicsm as casinos:
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/cyber.2020.0299
Problem being, is the game in question supposed to be an ARPG, or a casino game?
You don't need gambling in every game, it's best suited as it's own genre to begin with, and it's even better suited to the format where it's not about constant extraction of financial wealth.
Are people unable to enjoy gambling unless they got a financial stake in it?
Do they have to 'enjoy' gambling in every title out there?
And where's the line drawn for impact on the rest of the game systems?
"Don't like gambling, then don't gamble." Ok, sure, and when the gameplay you actually do want to engage in is stunted because of that, what's one to do?
About the only thing there is to do is the "then don't play it" solution. That's well and good up to the point that you still have a sufficient amount of people becoming dolphins and whales that it doesn't matter if anyone else is doing a sanity check.
Once they read it's banned because it includes microtransactions that, odds are, the person isn't even a big fan of, I don't see them going through the trouble.
Why would they go through the trouble when they can still play D3?