So....indie game industry policing groups now? Its almost like the 'indie' culture is trying to spread into everything now. Interesting idea but I think these guys should probably just petition their governments to open a separate sector for this kind of thing so we can hold someone actually libel if something is wrong as opposed to some randoms that could easily be fudging things without anyone really knowing. Last thing I want to hear is "EA is completely in the right for tying game progression into random itemized rewards that can be negated by financial means, so in turn it is in the hands of the individual for participating in the option and not EA for creating such option" or something like that.
The first is to provide opportunities to participate as part of a think tank with specific regard to laws and to help inform government policy with "guidance and input from industry leaders".
Those laws generally aren't for the protection of the people that choose to participate in the activity, it's usually for the protection of those around them. .....
doesnt change my observation one bit. Just diverts the conversation to my examples instead of my point.
Lets ask the opinions of those we claim to be helping, is that an unreasonable request?
Ask those around them that will feel the collateral effects, then. Just asking the person choosing to engage in the activity is short-sighted when their decision affects more than just themselves.
so this is NOT about consumer protection, but rather 'those who are close the consumer protection'.
That is insane logic, we have to protect people who are close to gamblers because of how they might be affected by the gamblers higher blood pressure and empty bank account.
AND under no condition shall we ask the gambler what he thinks
sweet fuck how about that for an over litigious society?
If one cannot handle the idea that their actions affect more than just themselves, they're likely to be of poor maturity and are most in need of instruction on how to act.
Problem gamblers commonly have an issue with stealing or committing other crimes to help support their habit. It's in society's interest to prevent a system that creates problem gamblers. The problem gambler's opinion of gambling means little in that instance.
of course actions can affect others. but that is not the question
1. Do we legislate any and all actives that MIGHT affect others negitivly no matter how small the negativity might be? 2. Do we classify riding in a car with someone else who is drunk at the same level of how ones blood pressure or no saving account might affect a family member? its absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to compare the two. are we going to now make anything that makes your blood pressure rise illegal because it might affect other people? what about poverty? ok now not saving properly is illegal because poverty might affect someone else.
Whether you like it or not, whenever an activity becomes dangerous enough to folks around the person engaging in the activity, society takes steps to curb said activity.
Your slippery slope fallacy is irrelevant. It's not a binary issue. Judgements must and will be made by society on what's an acceptable amount of risk. I.e., the level of BAC of a driver that makes said driver "drunk", or the amount of extra health costs endured by otherwise healthy folks due to poor choices taken by others. When it becomes inconvenient enough for the rest of society, actions will be taken.
Anyone who is for personal responsibility should be a fan of such actions.
Those laws generally aren't for the protection of the people that choose to participate in the activity, it's usually for the protection of those around them. .....
doesnt change my observation one bit. Just diverts the conversation to my examples instead of my point.
Lets ask the opinions of those we claim to be helping, is that an unreasonable request?
Ask those around them that will feel the collateral effects, then. Just asking the person choosing to engage in the activity is short-sighted when their decision affects more than just themselves.
so this is NOT about consumer protection, but rather 'those who are close the consumer protection'.
That is insane logic, we have to protect people who are close to gamblers because of how they might be affected by the gamblers higher blood pressure and empty bank account.
AND under no condition shall we ask the gambler what he thinks
sweet fuck how about that for an over litigious society?
If one cannot handle the idea that their actions affect more than just themselves, they're likely to be of poor maturity and are most in need of instruction on how to act.
Problem gamblers commonly have an issue with stealing or committing other crimes to help support their habit. It's in society's interest to prevent a system that creates problem gamblers. The problem gambler's opinion of gambling means little in that instance.
of course actions can affect others. but that is not the question
1. Do we legislate any and all actives that MIGHT affect others negitivly no matter how small the negativity might be? 2. Do we classify riding in a car with someone else who is drunk at the same level of how ones blood pressure or no saving account might affect a family member? its absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to compare the two. are we going to now make anything that makes your blood pressure rise illegal because it might affect other people? what about poverty? ok now not saving properly is illegal because poverty might affect someone else.
Whether you like it or not, whenever an activity becomes dangerous enough to folks around the person engaging in the activity, society takes steps to curb said activity.
Your slippery slope fallacy is irrelevant. It's not a binary issue. Judgements must and will be made by society on what's an acceptable amount of risk. I.e., the level of BAC of a driver that makes said driver "drunk", or the amount of extra health costs endured by otherwise healthy folks due to poor choices taken by others. When it becomes inconvenient enough for the rest of society, actions will be taken.
Anyone who is for personal responsibility should be a fan of such actions.
yes I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but 'I am poor'
or
'I have high blood pressure'
IS NOT
'a drunk drive just hit me'
is not one of them.
more over, I found studies that showed gambling is NOT addictive and I found one that showed video gamers ARE addictive. so it appears there is NOT universal agreement here.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The first is to provide opportunities to participate as part of a think tank with specific regard to laws and to help inform government policy with "guidance and input from industry leaders".
Those laws generally aren't for the protection of the people that choose to participate in the activity, it's usually for the protection of those around them. .....
doesnt change my observation one bit. Just diverts the conversation to my examples instead of my point.
Lets ask the opinions of those we claim to be helping, is that an unreasonable request?
Ask those around them that will feel the collateral effects, then. Just asking the person choosing to engage in the activity is short-sighted when their decision affects more than just themselves.
so this is NOT about consumer protection, but rather 'those who are close the consumer protection'.
That is insane logic, we have to protect people who are close to gamblers because of how they might be affected by the gamblers higher blood pressure and empty bank account.
AND under no condition shall we ask the gambler what he thinks
sweet fuck how about that for an over litigious society?
If one cannot handle the idea that their actions affect more than just themselves, they're likely to be of poor maturity and are most in need of instruction on how to act.
Problem gamblers commonly have an issue with stealing or committing other crimes to help support their habit. It's in society's interest to prevent a system that creates problem gamblers. The problem gambler's opinion of gambling means little in that instance.
of course actions can affect others. but that is not the question
1. Do we legislate any and all actives that MIGHT affect others negitivly no matter how small the negativity might be? 2. Do we classify riding in a car with someone else who is drunk at the same level of how ones blood pressure or no saving account might affect a family member? its absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to compare the two. are we going to now make anything that makes your blood pressure rise illegal because it might affect other people? what about poverty? ok now not saving properly is illegal because poverty might affect someone else.
Whether you like it or not, whenever an activity becomes dangerous enough to folks around the person engaging in the activity, society takes steps to curb said activity.
Your slippery slope fallacy is irrelevant. It's not a binary issue. Judgements must and will be made by society on what's an acceptable amount of risk. I.e., the level of BAC of a driver that makes said driver "drunk", or the amount of extra health costs endured by otherwise healthy folks due to poor choices taken by others. When it becomes inconvenient enough for the rest of society, actions will be taken.
Anyone who is for personal responsibility should be a fan of such actions.
yes I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but 'I am poor'
or
'I have high blood pressure'
IS NOT
'a drunk drive just hit me'
is not one of them.
more over, I found studies that showed gambling is NOT addictive and I found one that showed video gamers ARE addictive. so it appears there is NOT universal agreement here.
Shout it all you like Sean, you won't be heard over the roar of society on general.
It's a judgement call made on individual activities. Nobody said they're all the same thing, which is pretty much exactly what I said when I said society judges individual activities.
Shout it all you like Sean, you won't be heard over the roar of society on general.
It's a judgement call made on individual activities. Nobody said they're all the same thing, which is pretty much exactly what I said when I said society judges individual activities.
got..
so now that the 'majority' feels that its a crime to be poor or have high blood pressure because it might affect others. what are we going to do about fast food next?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
if I was in charge of such a organization the very first thing I would do is to contact the people spending the money on lootboxes and ask them what they think about it
No need... There are so many academic studies on gambling done already that nothing really new can be added to it.
I dont think its remotely out of line to talk to the people spending the money out of all the people one would plan to talk to.
There were also 'studies' that showed smoking was good for your health. Lets take a second look and at least talk to the people we consider victims.
you know why we should do that? because if we dont someday someone is going to restrict your access to spend money because they assume its bad for you
You missed the point....
Gambling is a very deeply studied subject. both in cultural, psychological, financial and legal fields... Many people have spoken to gamblers.. at length.... from pretty much every angle... That is why i am not sure talking to the "whales" would do much seeing how they would have the same reasons as every other addict...
if I was in charge of such a organization the very first thing I would do is to contact the people spending the money on lootboxes and ask them what they think about it
No need... There are so many academic studies on gambling done already that nothing really new can be added to it.
I dont think its remotely out of line to talk to the people spending the money out of all the people one would plan to talk to.
There were also 'studies' that showed smoking was good for your health. Lets take a second look and at least talk to the people we consider victims.
you know why we should do that? because if we dont someday someone is going to restrict your access to spend money because they assume its bad for you
You missed the point....
Gambling is a very deeply studied subject. both in cultural, psychological, financial and legal fields... Many people have spoken to gamblers.. at length.... from pretty much every angle... That is why i am not sure talking to the "whales" would do much seeing how they would have the same reasons as every other addict...
within seconds I found a study from a university that says gambling is NOT addictive. I have found another study from a university that said video gamer ARE addictive.
Addictions where the vast majority of the participates become addictive AND their actions are mostly violent toward others is something to look at.
the fact that SOME people MIGHT become addicted to gambling (I mean wining digital items that might give them advantage in game instead of digital cosmetic items) and MIGHT get high blood pressure because of it and that MIGHT affect family members and thus we need to heavily regulate it is,,,,absurd.
although i will say, I am all for making it illegal to have bad spending habits, lets talk about that!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'd like to know what their agenda is No, I mean the real agenda
Me too.
It has the looks of 5 corner grocery stores banding together and calling themselves a self regulatory agency for all retailing. Then there's the whistle blowing about industry work place part that, although not a bad thing, would seem to belong in some other organization established for that purpose.
TBH, my first reaction was all about industry shills and Orwellian doublespeak but looking at their website my 2nd take is more along the lines of the Mouse that Roared wanting to be noticed.
I guess we'll know when they actually do something
"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 I was in charge of such a organization the very first thing I would do is to contact the people spending the money on lootboxes and ask them what they think about it
No need... There are so many academic studies on gambling done already that nothing really new can be added to it.
I dont think its remotely out of line to talk to the people spending the money out of all the people one would plan to talk to.
There were also 'studies' that showed smoking was good for your health. Lets take a second look and at least talk to the people we consider victims.
you know why we should do that? because if we dont someday someone is going to restrict your access to spend money because they assume its bad for you
You missed the point....
Gambling is a very deeply studied subject. both in cultural, psychological, financial and legal fields... Many people have spoken to gamblers.. at length.... from pretty much every angle... That is why i am not sure talking to the "whales" would do much seeing how they would have the same reasons as every other addict...
within seconds I found a study from a university that says gambling is NOT addictive. I have found another study from a university that said video gamer ARE addictive.
Addictions where the vast majority of the participates become addictive AND their actions are mostly violent toward others is something to look at.
the fact that SOME people MIGHT become addicted to gambling (I mean wining digital items that might give them advantage in game instead of digital cosmetic items) and MIGHT get high blood pressure because of it and that MIGHT affect family members and thus we need to heavily regulate it is,,,,absurd.
although i will say, I am all for making it illegal to have bad spending habits, lets talk about that!
if I was in charge of such a organization the very first thing I would do is to contact the people spending the money on lootboxes and ask them what they think about it
No need... There are so many academic studies on gambling done already that nothing really new can be added to it.
I dont think its remotely out of line to talk to the people spending the money out of all the people one would plan to talk to.
There were also 'studies' that showed smoking was good for your health. Lets take a second look and at least talk to the people we consider victims.
you know why we should do that? because if we dont someday someone is going to restrict your access to spend money because they assume its bad for you
You missed the point....
Gambling is a very deeply studied subject. both in cultural, psychological, financial and legal fields... Many people have spoken to gamblers.. at length.... from pretty much every angle... That is why i am not sure talking to the "whales" would do much seeing how they would have the same reasons as every other addict...
within seconds I found a study from a university that says gambling is NOT addictive. I have found another study from a university that said video gamer ARE addictive.
Addictions where the vast majority of the participates become addictive AND their actions are mostly violent toward others is something to look at.
the fact that SOME people MIGHT become addicted to gambling (I mean wining digital items that might give them advantage in game instead of digital cosmetic items) and MIGHT get high blood pressure because of it and that MIGHT affect family members and thus we need to heavily regulate it is,,,,absurd.
although i will say, I am all for making it illegal to have bad spending habits, lets talk about that!
Lol you move goalposts as often as you post.
Your entire viewpoint is absurd.
Please read again what I said closely, think about it, and try to make the connection between drunk driving and gambling and be honest with yourself.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
if I was in charge of such a organization the very first thing I would do is to contact the people spending the money on lootboxes and ask them what they think about it
No need... There are so many academic studies on gambling done already that nothing really new can be added to it.
I dont think its remotely out of line to talk to the people spending the money out of all the people one would plan to talk to.
There were also 'studies' that showed smoking was good for your health. Lets take a second look and at least talk to the people we consider victims.
you know why we should do that? because if we dont someday someone is going to restrict your access to spend money because they assume its bad for you
You missed the point....
Gambling is a very deeply studied subject. both in cultural, psychological, financial and legal fields... Many people have spoken to gamblers.. at length.... from pretty much every angle... That is why i am not sure talking to the "whales" would do much seeing how they would have the same reasons as every other addict...
within seconds I found a study from a university that says gambling is NOT addictive. I have found another study from a university that said video gamer ARE addictive.
Addictions where the vast majority of the participates become addictive AND their actions are mostly violent toward others is something to look at.
the fact that SOME people MIGHT become addicted to gambling (I mean wining digital items that might give them advantage in game instead of digital cosmetic items) and MIGHT get high blood pressure because of it and that MIGHT affect family members and thus we need to heavily regulate it is,,,,absurd.
although i will say, I am all for making it illegal to have bad spending habits, lets talk about that!
Lol you move goalposts as often as you post.
Your entire viewpoint is absurd.
At this point, I'm assuming he's:
A) Absolutely invested in playing devil's advocate to the degree of ignoring his own cognitive dissonance.
B ) A corporate shill.
C) A troll.
D) Desperate to justify his own gambling addiction as normal behavior.
E) An EA employee or stockholder.
F) Someone with financial stake in gambling - IE: a casino owner.
or
G) Someone who has disposable income and a desire to buy power. (I would consider this to be the likely scenario).
if I was in charge of such a organization the very first thing I would do is to contact the people spending the money on lootboxes and ask them what they think about it
No need... There are so many academic studies on gambling done already that nothing really new can be added to it.
I dont think its remotely out of line to talk to the people spending the money out of all the people one would plan to talk to.
There were also 'studies' that showed smoking was good for your health. Lets take a second look and at least talk to the people we consider victims.
you know why we should do that? because if we dont someday someone is going to restrict your access to spend money because they assume its bad for you
You missed the point....
Gambling is a very deeply studied subject. both in cultural, psychological, financial and legal fields... Many people have spoken to gamblers.. at length.... from pretty much every angle... That is why i am not sure talking to the "whales" would do much seeing how they would have the same reasons as every other addict...
within seconds I found a study from a university that says gambling is NOT addictive. I have found another study from a university that said video gamer ARE addictive.
Addictions where the vast majority of the participates become addictive AND their actions are mostly violent toward others is something to look at.
the fact that SOME people MIGHT become addicted to gambling (I mean wining digital items that might give them advantage in game instead of digital cosmetic items) and MIGHT get high blood pressure because of it and that MIGHT affect family members and thus we need to heavily regulate it is,,,,absurd.
although i will say, I am all for making it illegal to have bad spending habits, lets talk about that!
Lol you move goalposts as often as you post.
Your entire viewpoint is absurd.
At this point, I'm assuming he's:
A) Absolutely invested in playing devil's advocate to the degree of ignoring his own cognitive dissonance.
B ) A corporate shill.
C) A troll.
D) Desperate to justify his own gambling addiction as normal behavior.
E) An EA employee or stockholder.
F) Someone with financial stake in gambling - IE: a casino owner.
or
G) Someone who has disposable income and a desire to buy power. (I would consider this to be the likely scenario).
its really not that complicated.
1. I LITERALLY found a university study that showed gambling is NOT addictive, I found another university study that found video games are addictive. So clearly there is not an academic agreement on if gambling is addictive in the first place
2. Gambling involves money for money. Questionable lootboxes are however very literally the difference between RNG for digital cosmetics vs RNG for maybe an advantage in the game over other players. Starting to litigate around those lines is going to be dicying as balls
3. When we start to litagate a persons choice we are saying its very serious. Its why we do not allow people the 'choice' to drive drunk. However, the 'choice' to RNG your money for digital goods seems like a good candiate for making something be a choice.
4. The BETTER option is not to buy the fucking game in the first place. You can not litegate a shitty developer into a good one. you need to find games that are not fuck balls.
Now..if your counter is anything other than bullshit then you dont need to get personal, that is how that works
the sad reality is this entire conversation is not about addiction. its about your (and others) personal desire to not have lootboxes in your games. That is the HONEST reality is. if we can start with that maybe?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Interesting. But once I look beyond the moralistic aspects of this type of committee, what companies are going to take actions on these findings? How are they going to change games in response to this committee, or is this just an industry catch-all that game companies can point to and say 'they said it was okay' or 'we did not find any problems with a particular practice'.
Maybe I'm just in an extra-cantankerous mood today, but I'm always skeptical when a group steps forward to regulate the actions and thoughts of others.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
"insiders" LMAO....inform policy,sounds a lot like lobbyists acting on behalf of the corrupt rich. If the government people have any ability at all,they SHOULD be in touch with the real world,this says they haven't a clue what is going on. This stuff should be VERY obvious and comm,on sense,there is NOTHING good about RNG,it's intent is to deceive users with the perception they have a decent chance at attaining something "virtually" valuable,when in fact is often manipulated % to make sure you don't get too lucky and beat the %'s. Example and laws needs to get involved here as well,"selling of cards" TCG games.They can manipulate the numbers to make sure you don't get more than they want you to get.Example buy 50 packs,they auto figure in a possible chance of no more than 3-4 rares .Someone opens a pack and gets 2 rares in one pack and thinks WHOA,i got real lucky,then continues to get only 1-2 more in the next 49 packs. The consumer should be informed of EXACT numbers,we should know exactly what the dev has done to manipulate the numbers based on their rng formula's.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
"insiders" LMAO....inform policy,sounds a lot like lobbyists acting on behalf of the corrupt rich. If the government people have any ability at all,they SHOULD be in touch with the real world,this says they haven't a clue what is going on. This stuff should be VERY obvious and comm,on sense,there is NOTHING good about RNG,it's intent is to deceive users with the perception they have a decent chance at attaining something "virtually" valuable,when in fact is often manipulated % to make sure you don't get too lucky and beat the %'s. Example and laws needs to get involved here as well,"selling of cards" TCG games.They can manipulate the numbers to make sure you don't get more than they want you to get.Example buy 50 packs,they auto figure in a possible chance of no more than 3-4 rares .Someone opens a pack and gets 2 rares in one pack and thinks WHOA,i got real lucky,then continues to get only 1-2 more in the next 49 packs. The consumer should be informed of EXACT numbers,we should know exactly what the dev has done to manipulate the numbers based on their rng formula's.
For once, we actually agree on something.
Frankly, anything that diverts from sale of a known good for a known price is unethical. The consumer has every right to know the exact details of what they are buying.
Interesting. But once I look beyond the moralistic aspects of this type of committee, what companies are going to take actions on these findings? How are they going to change games in response to this committee, or is this just an industry catch-all that game companies can point to and say 'they said it was okay' or 'we did not find any problems with a particular practice'.
Maybe I'm just in an extra-cantankerous mood today, but I'm always skeptical when a group steps forward to regulate the actions and thoughts of others.
No need to be suspicious. This is an industry think tank designed to put together solutions to the current problem... the angry mob. They will come up with best practices, and white papers that will help developers avoid this in the future. Companies don't like to be seen as the bad guy, and with proper practices, they will not be.
Every country creates laws based on the needs of their people so if this determines that gambling in games hurts families and/or individuals more than it helps then I'm all for govt stepping in and banning it, like heroin.
Every country creates laws based on the needs of their people so if this determines that gambling in games hurts families and/or individuals more than it helps then I'm all for govt stepping in and banning it, like heroin.
You're right, we need the government goons to stop these dangerous Casinos ripping people off. And how about those evil State lotteries, they gotta go too. And forget about the weekly poker game at eddies house, that leads to sin. Nothing good comes from the big government getting involved usually. )
Comments
So, lobbyists?
Your slippery slope fallacy is irrelevant. It's not a binary issue. Judgements must and will be made by society on what's an acceptable amount of risk. I.e., the level of BAC of a driver that makes said driver "drunk", or the amount of extra health costs endured by otherwise healthy folks due to poor choices taken by others. When it becomes inconvenient enough for the rest of society, actions will be taken.
Anyone who is for personal responsibility should be a fan of such actions.
Alriiiiiight, No, Shame.
but 'I am poor'
or
'I have high blood pressure'
IS NOT
'a drunk drive just hit me'
is not one of them.
more over, I found studies that showed gambling is NOT addictive and I found one that showed video gamers ARE addictive. so it appears there is NOT universal agreement here.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Yup !
There's been a groundswell of negative opinion around the "lootbox" feature recently, and some politicians are starting to notice the potential here (https://www.mmorpg.com/videos/hawaiis-chris-lee-together-we-can-stop-predatory-gaming-practices-1000005707).
This "think-tank" is probably a pre-emptive move by the games industry to protect their revenue streams...
It's a judgement call made on individual activities. Nobody said they're all the same thing, which is pretty much exactly what I said when I said society judges individual activities.
so now that the 'majority' feels that its a crime to be poor or have high blood pressure because it might affect others. what are we going to do about fast food next?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
No, I mean the real agenda
You missed the point....
Gambling is a very deeply studied subject. both in cultural, psychological, financial and legal fields... Many people have spoken to gamblers.. at length.... from pretty much every angle... That is why i am not sure talking to the "whales" would do much seeing how they would have the same reasons as every other addict...
This have been a good conversation
Addictions where the vast majority of the participates become addictive AND their actions are mostly violent toward others is something to look at.
the fact that SOME people MIGHT become addicted to gambling (I mean wining digital items that might give them advantage in game instead of digital cosmetic items) and MIGHT get high blood pressure because of it and that MIGHT affect family members and thus we need to heavily regulate it is,,,,absurd.
although i will say, I am all for making it illegal to have bad spending habits, lets talk about that!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It has the looks of 5 corner grocery stores banding together and calling themselves a self regulatory agency for all retailing. Then there's the whistle blowing about industry work place part that, although not a bad thing, would seem to belong in some other organization established for that purpose.
TBH, my first reaction was all about industry shills and Orwellian doublespeak but looking at their website my 2nd take is more along the lines of the Mouse that Roared wanting to be noticed.
I guess we'll know when they actually do something
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Your entire viewpoint is absurd.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
A) Absolutely invested in playing devil's advocate to the degree of ignoring his own cognitive dissonance.
B ) A corporate shill.
C) A troll.
D) Desperate to justify his own gambling addiction as normal behavior.
E) An EA employee or stockholder.
F) Someone with financial stake in gambling - IE: a casino owner.
or
G) Someone who has disposable income and a desire to buy power. (I would consider this to be the likely scenario).
1. I LITERALLY found a university study that showed gambling is NOT addictive, I found another university study that found video games are addictive. So clearly there is not an academic agreement on if gambling is addictive in the first place
2. Gambling involves money for money. Questionable lootboxes are however very literally the difference between RNG for digital cosmetics vs RNG for maybe an advantage in the game over other players. Starting to litigate around those lines is going to be dicying as balls
3. When we start to litagate a persons choice we are saying its very serious. Its why we do not allow people the 'choice' to drive drunk. However, the 'choice' to RNG your money for digital goods seems like a good candiate for making something be a choice.
4. The BETTER option is not to buy the fucking game in the first place. You can not litegate a shitty developer into a good one. you need to find games that are not fuck balls.
Now..if your counter is anything other than bullshit then you dont need to get personal, that is how that works
the sad reality is this entire conversation is not about addiction. its about your (and others) personal desire to not have lootboxes in your games. That is the HONEST reality is. if we can start with that maybe?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Maybe I'm just in an extra-cantankerous mood today, but I'm always skeptical when a group steps forward to regulate the actions and thoughts of others.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
If the government people have any ability at all,they SHOULD be in touch with the real world,this says they haven't a clue what is going on.
This stuff should be VERY obvious and comm,on sense,there is NOTHING good about RNG,it's intent is to deceive users with the perception they have a decent chance at attaining something "virtually" valuable,when in fact is often manipulated % to make sure you don't get too lucky and beat the %'s.
Example and laws needs to get involved here as well,"selling of cards" TCG games.They can manipulate the numbers to make sure you don't get more than they want you to get.Example buy 50 packs,they auto figure in a possible chance of no more than 3-4 rares .Someone opens a pack and gets 2 rares in one pack and thinks WHOA,i got real lucky,then continues to get only 1-2 more in the next 49 packs.
The consumer should be informed of EXACT numbers,we should know exactly what the dev has done to manipulate the numbers based on their rng formula's.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Frankly, anything that diverts from sale of a known good for a known price is unethical. The consumer has every right to know the exact details of what they are buying.
As i pointed out.. it has been studied from pretty much every angle...
My question then is... what will gamer/gamblers add to the mix that is new?
Because the patterns used with lootboxes are the exact same as with casino gambling... In short nothing new... Just the same hooks and sinks.
Not a problem for most people... A very real problem for some people... just like for an example.. the hooch...
This have been a good conversation
No need to be suspicious. This is an industry think tank designed to put together solutions to the current problem... the angry mob. They will come up with best practices, and white papers that will help developers avoid this in the future. Companies don't like to be seen as the bad guy, and with proper practices, they will not be.
You're right, we need the government goons to stop these dangerous Casinos ripping people off. And how about those evil State lotteries, they gotta go too. And forget about the weekly poker game at eddies house, that leads to sin. Nothing good comes from the big government getting involved usually. )