If all these regulations and more were put in place, the price of games would skyrocket. You'd like to purchase Fallout 6? That'll be $750 dollars please. I'm fine with regulating lootboxes/gambling in video games where that mechanic is used for progression or an in-game advantage, but all the other rules you want to implement would introduce more and more financial risk to investors, meaning we'll see even less risk in the content of video games. Well those new game mechanics sound cool, but we can't risk it and people liked the mechanics in the last three games... It would also destroy indie developers.
The only way things will change is if people vote with their wallets. That's it. If you don't want to support a project that may fail, then don't. Early access games can fail, that's part of the risk you take in buying into one and why the price is usually highly discounted from the release price. If you don't agree with a business model, don't buy the game.
I have no problem letting people gamble or smoke or do what ever they want to do to harm themselves.
Stop making me pay taxes to keep these people alive. If they make a choice that harms them let them deal with it. Only thing I would be willing to pay for is the person who has to clean up the carcass.
I don't drive. I shouldn't pay any taxes that go into roads. I don't have kids, I should never have to pay taxes towards education. I don't like something that taxes pay for, my taxes shouldn't pay for that... You don't seem to understand how a society works. You don't get to pick and choose what your taxes pay for.
Wow how did I miss this awful idea of a thread. Guess the OP doesn't realize that everything the government puts it's own greedy paws into turns to shit over time in the last 50 or so years. Most of those ideas are bat-shit crazy. The idea of regulation itself is not a bad thing but when you try and regulate every aspect of something it turns to a over-bloated crapfest. Just look at our government and you can see that everyday. First you have to have a rule or regulation for this but then it conflicts with this so now you need a regulation to counter that regulation and so forth. This is exactly how our government works. They hardly ever come back and say we messed up and remove anything they just add to the mess and keep adding till things hit a point of no return.
Let's take the last item on the list for example. Tell me how you are going to prove that someone sitting at a computer is who they say they are. Simple answer in today's world you can't because we don't use bio sensors and true identities online in today's world. Saying a company is responsible for something you can't even do yourself is beyond stupid. A company should be at fault because mom and dad let their kid have a credit card and they ran up a $5k bill in a month buying digital crap. Give me a break. It is the parents responsibility to monitor their kids not the other way around.
Make sure they do tell you that their game is full of Gambling (RnG!!!)...
Or in this game, we do sell items of power!!! Its a (P2W).
Or, this game doesn't have substantial endgame (Unfinished Product)...
Or what about, you need to perform a rite of passage in this game to enjoy the real stuff (Grinding)...
It will mess up freedom if they regulate what they can do, but if they are force to come open and let us know what we are getting ourselves into. Then I can make better use of my Freedom (my time) in a better way.
Important that you put the "hear me out!" bit in your post, OP. Glad you did. I agree with alot of what you're saying, at least in sentiment. Instead of banning everything, you are seriously trying to regulate it.
The gambling aspects may actually come to fruition at some point. Because yeah, it(usually represented as "boxes and keys") is so very much gambling it's not even funny; I don't know how anyone could argue against that.
When it comes to the "refunding money spent for promises not kept" bits, I doubt that would or could ever happen. For it to work, that money would have to be escrowed, and if it was, then the company wouldn't bother with it, because they need the moneynow! Or they'll promise it, declare bankruptcy and players will get pennies on the dollar, if anything.
Glad you're trying to find middle ground, OP!
for grins I will argue over the gambling thing.
1. just because its the law doesnt mean its a good law. Gambling as being 'illegal' is in my view highly questionable. Why do I not have the right to spend money as I see fit for myself? Why is good spending habits something that should be regulated? making it illegal to be a fool with your money?
2. as it relates to gaming specifically the best outcome you can ever hope for is that it will be banned from children. Not for one second to I believe the motivation of posters here at MMORPG are really primarily concerned about the effects of gambling on children. We all know the motivation is to get gambling out of THEIR gaming experience. So being motivated by a dishonest reason is likely going to make for bad decisions.
3. what people need to concern themselves with (in my view) is not gambling but the marketing around gambling.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
why would crowdfunding need that? why do you feel that should be the case?
from my view as long as a person is honest about what you are buying, there is no harm to health or public safety then done....market forces should dictate if developers should reveal all accounting or not
For the exact same reasons that a publicly traded company has to open the books to their investors.
It helps to keep them honest and accountable.
two things.
1. its not an investment, you are making a donation, its not an investment.
2. investors do NOT get to see all the books on all the projects of publically traded companies. I dont know the details but I am pretty sure they can not see all the details
oh and 3.
3. why should investors be allowed to see the books of a public traded company? regardless of how it really is. Or rather to ask why should it be legally required. why cant market forces work in that case as well?
1. So because its a donation and not an investment, it means that the recipient can spend a portion of the proceeds on hookers and blow?
2. I'm an investor in three companies and I get a fully detailed accounting report. If anything looks fishy your goddamn rights I'm going to be asking questions.
3. It's a big scary word and its something that a lot of people and companies like to shy away from
The word is *accountability*
1. yes, if they want to get plenty of donations maybe they can decide to reveal what they are spending on. if they dont give a shit, then the dont have to. again market forces.
2. investors are not required to be able to see all the books of all the projects I am nearly positive that an investors report is not going to contain how much they spent on a coffee machine which was a huge debate flame throwing around in the SC world. you are not going to get that level of detail.
3. the question is not so much why should they (even though I asked it that way), the question is why should they be legally REQUIRED to. companies that dont will have less investors, companies that do, will have more investors. that is market principles. People should be allowed the freedom to be stupid and even to be rude for that matter. Starting to regulate ANYTHING by a centralized authority needs to be because of very extreemly serious reasons because its always a dicy road to go down to break on peoples freedoms and spending $20 on an KS likely will never qualify OTHER than the statement of 'as long as the person asking isnt liying'
why would crowdfunding need that? why do you feel that should be the case?
from my view as long as a person is honest about what you are buying, there is no harm to health or public safety then done....market forces should dictate if developers should reveal all accounting or not
For the exact same reasons that a publicly traded company has to open the books to their investors.
It helps to keep them honest and accountable.
two things.
1. its not an investment, you are making a donation, its not an investment.
2. investors do NOT get to see all the books on all the projects of publically traded companies. I dont know the details but I am pretty sure they can not see all the details
oh and 3.
3. why should investors be allowed to see the books of a public traded company? regardless of how it really is. Or rather to ask why should it be legally required. why cant market forces work in that case as well?
1. So because its a donation and not an investment, it means that the recipient can spend a portion of the proceeds on hookers and blow?
2. I'm an investor in three companies and I get a fully detailed accounting report. If anything looks fishy your goddamn rights I'm going to be asking questions.
3. It's a big scary word and its something that a lot of people and companies like to shy away from
The word is *accountability*
1. yes, if they want to get plenty of donations maybe they can decide to reveal what they are spending on. if they dont give a shit, then the dont have to. again market forces.
2. investors are not required to be able to see all the books of all the projects I am nearly positive that an investors report is not going to contain how much they spent on a coffee machine which was a huge debate flame throwing around in the SC world. you are not going to get that level of detail.
3. the question is not so much why should they (even though I asked it that way), the question is why should they be legally REQUIRED to. companies that dont will have less investors, companies that do, will have more investors. that is market principles. People should be allowed the freedom to be stupid and even to be rude for that matter. Starting to regulate ANYTHING by a centralized authority needs to be because of very extreemly serious reasons because its always a dicy road to go down to break on peoples freedoms and spending $20 on an KS likely will never qualify OTHER than the statement of 'as long as the person asking isnt liying'
3. Why should companies be legally required to? Another big word coming and that word is...
***confidence***
What happens when investors lose confidence?
We cant forget to give thanks to the many companies like Enron for the creation and expansion of rules and regulations.
If people were honest we wouldn't need rules and regulations.
How much *confidence* do you have in people being honest?
1. but there isnt which is the problem. you guys are trying to fix a problem that basically doesnt exist in the mean (average)
2. please dont post a link unless the first sentence says 'yes they need to show the level of detail down to the coffee maker. I am a stock investor, I dont think I can get that information TO THAT LEVEL. dont waste my time, give me specific proof to just what I am talking about please.
3. I say again. Market forces teaches this. That which is good will prevail, that which is bad will not. Developers that do what you suggest IF its helpful WILL become more successful then those who do not. making it a LEGAL REQUIREMENT is the same thing as a centralized moral authority making decisions for everyone else. who will do that?
and buying an early access title is not remotely the same thing as investing.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If all these regulations and more were put in place, the price of games would skyrocket. You'd like to purchase Fallout 6? That'll be $750 dollars please. I'm fine with regulating lootboxes/gambling in video games where that mechanic is used for progression or an in-game advantage, but all the other rules you want to implement would introduce more and more financial risk to investors, meaning we'll see even less risk in the content of video games. Well those new game mechanics sound cool, but we can't risk it and people liked the mechanics in the last three games... It would also destroy indie developers.
The only way things will change is if people vote with their wallets. That's it. If you don't want to support a project that may fail, then don't. Early access games can fail, that's part of the risk you take in buying into one and why the price is usually highly discounted from the release price. If you don't agree with a business model, don't buy the game.
I think it would be more like $100 if the publishers wanted to earn as much money as 10 years ago due to inflation. But youi are right, either the devs would have to increase their prices, sell far more boxes, lower their development cost (like making the games in India or another place with lower saleries) or see their profit margin drop.
I am not sure we could see less risk then companies like EA games are taking, I don't see how that is possible.
I agree with you point, we need to vote with out wallets. Whining about lotboxes but still buy both the game and a number of boxes is rather pointless. EA & Activision want you money, they couldn't care less about whining so as long as it is profitable they will try to squeeze everything they can from you.
And regulations just means they will try to find another way to get you paying as much as possible for the game. They might not have much talent for inventing new game mechanics but they are good of inventing stuff for maximizing profits.
If all these regulations and more were put in place, the price of games would skyrocket. You'd like to purchase Fallout 6? That'll be $750 dollars please. I'm fine with regulating lootboxes/gambling in video games where that mechanic is used for progression or an in-game advantage, but all the other rules you want to implement would introduce more and more financial risk to investors, meaning we'll see even less risk in the content of video games. Well those new game mechanics sound cool, but we can't risk it and people liked the mechanics in the last three games... It would also destroy indie developers.
The only way things will change is if people vote with their wallets. That's it. If you don't want to support a project that may fail, then don't. Early access games can fail, that's part of the risk you take in buying into one and why the price is usually highly discounted from the release price. If you don't agree with a business model, don't buy the game.
Isn't that a bit off. Fallout 3-5 are single player games and to my knowledge don't have loot boxes. They may have some items for purchase or expansions. Most of their profit comes from the initial sale I believe. Free to play MMOs are a different beast.
More like gamers need to learn some restraint. Things like that would impossible if some didn't fork over ridiculous amounts of money for that stuff.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
why would crowdfunding need that? why do you feel that should be the case?
from my view as long as a person is honest about what you are buying, there is no harm to health or public safety then done....market forces should dictate if developers should reveal all accounting or not
For the exact same reasons that a publicly traded company has to open the books to their investors.
It helps to keep them honest and accountable.
two things.
1. its not an investment, you are making a donation, its not an investment.
2. investors do NOT get to see all the books on all the projects of publically traded companies. I dont know the details but I am pretty sure they can not see all the details
oh and 3.
3. why should investors be allowed to see the books of a public traded company? regardless of how it really is. Or rather to ask why should it be legally required. why cant market forces work in that case as well?
1. So because its a donation and not an investment, it means that the recipient can spend a portion of the proceeds on hookers and blow?
2. I'm an investor in three companies and I get a fully detailed accounting report. If anything looks fishy your goddamn rights I'm going to be asking questions.
3. It's a big scary word and its something that a lot of people and companies like to shy away from
The word is *accountability*
1. yes, if they want to get plenty of donations maybe they can decide to reveal what they are spending on. if they dont give a shit, then the dont have to. again market forces.
2. investors are not required to be able to see all the books of all the projects I am nearly positive that an investors report is not going to contain how much they spent on a coffee machine which was a huge debate flame throwing around in the SC world. you are not going to get that level of detail.
3. the question is not so much why should they (even though I asked it that way), the question is why should they be legally REQUIRED to. companies that dont will have less investors, companies that do, will have more investors. that is market principles. People should be allowed the freedom to be stupid and even to be rude for that matter. Starting to regulate ANYTHING by a centralized authority needs to be because of very extreemly serious reasons because its always a dicy road to go down to break on peoples freedoms and spending $20 on an KS likely will never qualify OTHER than the statement of 'as long as the person asking isnt liying'
3. Why should companies be legally required to? Another big word coming and that word is...
***confidence***
What happens when investors lose confidence?
We cant forget to give thanks to the many companies like Enron for the creation and expansion of rules and regulations.
If people were honest we wouldn't need rules and regulations.
How much *confidence* do you have in people being honest?
1. but there isnt which is the problem. you guys are trying to fix a problem that basically doesnt exist in the mean (average)
2. please dont post a link unless the first sentence says 'yes they need to show the level of detail down to the coffee maker. I am a stock investor, I dont think I can get that information TO THAT LEVEL. dont waste my time, give me specific proof to just what I am talking about please.
3. I say again. Market forces teaches this. That which is good will prevail, that which is bad will not. Developers that do what you suggest IF its helpful WILL become more successful then those who do not. making it a LEGAL REQUIREMENT is the same thing as a centralized moral authority making decisions for everyone else. who will do that?
and buying an early access title is not remotely the same thing as investing.
1. I could give a fuck about Kickstarter/Crowdfunding. Lots of scammers everywhere, disclosure helps cut those numbers down some.
2. Coffee Maker... really? a little extreme are we, I doubt the CEO of Apple or GM could get a 100% accurate accounting of money spent on coffee makers. Why stop at Coffee Makers? How about fucking paper clips.
I own 100% of one company, I'm a silent investor for 25% and 33% of two other companies. I can get any financials I require from those two other companies and If I owned 25% of the stock of any public company, how much you wanna bet I can get any of the financials I want.
If you own 0.00000001% of the stock of a corporation your a pawn, you'd also be surprised at the amount of financial information you are entitled to.
3. Publicly traded companies are legally required to disclose. Charities are legally required to disclose. What the fuck makes a publicly, donor funded software developer more special than everyone else?
Why do you think these disclosure rules came into being in the first place?
Careful what you ask the government to regulate. Obsessive gaming is now a recognized disease. You want them regulating how much you can play?
Yeah absolutely. Lets let the nanny state regulate how long you are allowed to play your games. It's like being a child again except they can do it to you while you're an adult.
It's amazing and disheartening to me that 3/10 people who read that post would actually agree with it. Or that someone would even make it. Don't these people realize that everything the government touches turns to crap?
Careful what you ask the government to regulate. Obsessive gaming is now a recognized disease. You want them regulating how much you can play?
Yeah absolutely. Lets let the nanny state regulate how long you are allowed to play your games. It's like being a child again except they can do it to you while you're an adult.
It's amazing and disheartening to me that 3/10 people who read that post would actually agree with it. Or that someone would even make it. Don't these people realize that everything the government touches turns to crap?
The government regulates gambling. Does the government tell you how much time and how much money you can spend in a Casino?
Careful what you ask the government to regulate. Obsessive gaming is now a recognized disease. You want them regulating how much you can play?
Yeah absolutely. Lets let the nanny state regulate how long you are allowed to play your games. It's like being a child again except they can do it to you while you're an adult.
It's amazing and disheartening to me that 3/10 people who read that post would actually agree with it. Or that someone would even make it. Don't these people realize that everything the government touches turns to crap?
I agree with everything you say except for the last part. what Goverment touches is a hit and a miss regarding success.
but yes, people should be wary of a centralized authority controlling creative entertainment. That rarely turns out well, clean water on the other hand lets talk,
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I do wonder, when compared to other pieces of software, where games rank in disclosure and honesty? I mean, I have never seen Microsoft Word promise me something it wasn't going to deliver, nor have I seen it ask for millions of dollars to help it come to fruition. Same is true with the camera software on my iPhone, my messaging app, etc. All of my Google docs and drive folders are exactly what is promised. The maps program in my car did not promise me anything other than what was stated and expected. My Sirius XM radio programs are exactly what was written on the booklet.
I know these are not an exact comparison, but there is a point to be made here; one that was stated earlier: what makes game developers unique?
Just a thought.
One note @ Seanmcad: the reason people keep comparing Kickstarter to financial investments is because they are similar, both in action and consequence. I do not have to invest money in the market, yet if I do, I am at risk of losing some of it. There are regulations investment strategies to help prevent this, but the risk is there. I could keep the money in a savings or retirement account, but I am at risk of losing that too. But again, there are regulations to help prevent this from happening as well as insurance. (Neither is fail-proof though, ask anyone who has had their pension dismantled because an institution didn't control their spending.)
Compare this with Kickstarter. I do not have to put my money in there, but I do. It is an investment, the same as if I invest in an In-&-Out stock. Both, hopefully will give me pleasure; one entertaining and rewarding, the other tasty and financial. But either way, I expect my investment to pay dividends, no matter what currency (emotional or monetary) they may be.
Mind you, I am not stating it should be regulated. I am saying the similarities are there, and it is a viable comparison. There is, after all, an entire industry based on funding startups, particularly medical and Silicon Valley. They have regulations for those investment firms, millionaires, and moguls. As well as regulations for the startups.
I do wonder, when compared to other pieces of software, where games rank in disclosure and honesty? I mean, I have never seen Microsoft Word promise me something it wasn't going to deliver, nor have I seen it ask for millions of dollars to help it come to fruition. Same is true with the camera software on my iPhone, my messaging app, etc. All of my Google docs and drive folders are exactly what is promised. The maps program in my car did not promise me anything other than what was stated and expected. My Sirius XM radio programs are exactly what was written on the booklet.
I know these are not an exact comparison, but there is a point to be made here; one that was stated earlier: what makes game developers unique?
Just a thought.
One note @ Seanmcad: the reason people keep comparing Kickstarter to financial investments is because they are similar, both in action and consequence. I do not have to invest money in the market, yet if I do, I am at risk of losing some of it. There are regulations investment strategies to help prevent this, but the risk is there. I could keep the money in a savings or retirement account, but I am at risk of losing that too. But again, there are regulations to help prevent this from happening as well as insurance. (Neither is fail-proof though, ask anyone who has had their pension dismantled because an institution didn't control their spending.)
Compare this with Kickstarter. I do not have to put my money in there, but I do. It is an investment, the same as if I invest in an In-&-Out stock. Both, hopefully will give me pleasure; one entertaining and rewarding, the other tasty and financial. But either way, I expect my investment to pay dividends, no matter what currency (emotional or monetary) they may be.
Mind you, I am not stating it should be regulated. I am saying the similarities are there, and it is a viable comparison. There is, after all, an entire industry based on funding startups, particularly medical and Silicon Valley. They have regulations for those investment firms, millionaires, and moguls. As well as regulations for the startups.
1. I can 'promise' you a big red button and when you hit it, it will say 'you win!'. I can deliever that on time and I can communicate with you. but it doesnt make it a good game. There are plenty of examples of crappy fullfiled promises and plenty of examples of unfilled games that are flat out awesome.
2. my advice when people buy into an early access game is to ignore future plans. if the game experience appears to be fun as it is, buy, else dont. Now I understand that is not the intent, so that is more of an observation but to the part of investing to be frank I think comparing a $20 video game 'investement' to that of Enron I think is silly. Besides, what got Enron into trouble was because THEIR BOOKS...where fake. So maybe it is better to let market forces dictate that instead of the law.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Careful what you ask the government to regulate. Obsessive gaming is now a recognized disease. You want them regulating how much you can play?
Yeah absolutely. Lets let the nanny state regulate how long you are allowed to play your games. It's like being a child again except they can do it to you while you're an adult.
It's amazing and disheartening to me that 3/10 people who read that post would actually agree with it. Or that someone would even make it. Don't these people realize that everything the government touches turns to crap?
The government regulates gambling. Does the government tell you how much time and how much money you can spend in a Casino?
Because being told you can't do it at all is so much better than time limits.
Careful what you ask the government to regulate. Obsessive gaming is now a recognized disease. You want them regulating how much you can play?
Yeah absolutely. Lets let the nanny state regulate how long you are allowed to play your games. It's like being a child again except they can do it to you while you're an adult.
It's amazing and disheartening to me that 3/10 people who read that post would actually agree with it. Or that someone would even make it. Don't these people realize that everything the government touches turns to crap?
I agree with everything you say except for the last part. what Goverment touches is a hit and a miss regarding success.
Here in the US there isn't a single thing I can point to that I feel our government is doing well. Literally none. Pretty much everything our government does I feel we either shouldn't be doing at all, or we're doing a crap job of it for way more money than other nations spend doing it.
Getting the US government involved in something seems like the last way to make it better, unless you need something blown up and give no craps about the pricetag.
I still can't wrap my head around how loot boxes are gambling.
If the contents have real cash value, ok. Then yeah.
But, in most games, they don't. There was the cash shop Auction House that used to exist in D3, but it's gone now. I suppose some of the F2P games where you can trade items for their cash-backed currency, yes you could consider that gambling at that point. But most don't allow you to trade in items for the cash-backed currency, it's for some alternative game-only currency that has no cash value.
Does it suck if you don't get what you want? Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's gambling. Gambling, in my opinion, is a game of risk with a cash (or cash equivalent) payout. For example: Blackjack is just a card game, but you introduce cash (or other value commodity) reward, then it becomes gambling.
You could say that, if you don't get what you want you have to pay for another cash box. That still doesn't make it gambling though - that is still just a game of chance. Unless you can convert those virtual items you win for real, physical value in the real world, I don't see it as gambling.
If we go down the extreme route of saying cash boxes with a % chance for various loot items is gambling - how is that different from, say, a dungeon boss that has a % chance for various loot items?
I think loot boxes suck, sure. But that's why I don't buy them, and I don't think they need to be regulated. Unless your looking at them having a real world value...
I do wonder, when compared to other pieces of software, where games rank in disclosure and honesty? I mean, I have never seen Microsoft Word promise me something it wasn't going to deliver, nor have I seen it ask for millions of dollars to help it come to fruition. Same is true with the camera software on my iPhone, my messaging app, etc. All of my Google docs and drive folders are exactly what is promised. The maps program in my car did not promise me anything other than what was stated and expected. My Sirius XM radio programs are exactly what was written on the booklet.
I know these are not an exact comparison, but there is a point to be made here; one that was stated earlier: what makes game developers unique?
Just a thought.
One note @ Seanmcad: the reason people keep comparing Kickstarter to financial investments is because they are similar, both in action and consequence. I do not have to invest money in the market, yet if I do, I am at risk of losing some of it. There are regulations investment strategies to help prevent this, but the risk is there. I could keep the money in a savings or retirement account, but I am at risk of losing that too. But again, there are regulations to help prevent this from happening as well as insurance. (Neither is fail-proof though, ask anyone who has had their pension dismantled because an institution didn't control their spending.)
Compare this with Kickstarter. I do not have to put my money in there, but I do. It is an investment, the same as if I invest in an In-&-Out stock. Both, hopefully will give me pleasure; one entertaining and rewarding, the other tasty and financial. But either way, I expect my investment to pay dividends, no matter what currency (emotional or monetary) they may be.
Mind you, I am not stating it should be regulated. I am saying the similarities are there, and it is a viable comparison. There is, after all, an entire industry based on funding startups, particularly medical and Silicon Valley. They have regulations for those investment firms, millionaires, and moguls. As well as regulations for the startups.
1. I can 'promise' you a big red button and when you hit it, it will say 'you win!'. I can deliever that on time and I can communicate with you. but it doesnt make it a good game. There are plenty of examples of crappy fullfiled promises and plenty of examples of unfilled games that are flat out awesome.
2. my advice when people buy into an early access game is to ignore future plans. if the game experience appears to be fun as it is, buy, else dont. Now I understand that is not the intent, so that is more of an observation but to the part of investing to be frank I think comparing a $20 video game 'investement' to that of Enron I think is silly. Besides, what got Enron into trouble was because THEIR BOOKS...where fake. So maybe it is better to let market forces dictate that instead of the law.
The development of federal securities law was spurred by the stock market crash of 1929, and the resulting Great Depression. In the period leading up to the stock market crash, companies issued stock and enthusiastically promoted the value of their company to induce investors to purchase those securities. Brokers in turn sold this stock to investors based on promises of large profits but with little disclosure of relevant information about the company. In many cases, the promises made by companies and brokers had little or no substantive basis, or were wholly fraudulent. With thousands of investors buying up stock in hopes of huge profits, the market was in a state of speculative frenzy that ended in October 1929, when the market crashed as panicky investors sold off their investments en masse.
In reaction to this calamity and at President Franklin Roosevelt's instigation, Congress set out to enact laws that would prevent speculative frenzies. After a series of hearings that brought to light the severity of the abuses leading to the crash, Congress enacted the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The key theme of the federal securities law is the need to give investors access to information about the securities they buy and the companies that issue securities. Federal securities laws primarily accomplish this by putting the burden on companies to disclose information about themselves and the securities they issue. The efficacy of these disclosure requirements is backed up by broad liability for fraud under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act for both issuers and sellers of securities. Congress intended to ensure that investors had access to balanced, non-fraudulent information.
I do wonder, when compared to other pieces of software, where games rank in disclosure and honesty? I mean, I have never seen Microsoft Word promise me something it wasn't going to deliver, nor have I seen it ask for millions of dollars to help it come to fruition. Same is true with the camera software on my iPhone, my messaging app, etc. All of my Google docs and drive folders are exactly what is promised. The maps program in my car did not promise me anything other than what was stated and expected. My Sirius XM radio programs are exactly what was written on the booklet.
I know these are not an exact comparison, but there is a point to be made here; one that was stated earlier: what makes game developers unique?
Just a thought.
One note @ Seanmcad: the reason people keep comparing Kickstarter to financial investments is because they are similar, both in action and consequence. I do not have to invest money in the market, yet if I do, I am at risk of losing some of it. There are regulations investment strategies to help prevent this, but the risk is there. I could keep the money in a savings or retirement account, but I am at risk of losing that too. But again, there are regulations to help prevent this from happening as well as insurance. (Neither is fail-proof though, ask anyone who has had their pension dismantled because an institution didn't control their spending.)
Compare this with Kickstarter. I do not have to put my money in there, but I do. It is an investment, the same as if I invest in an In-&-Out stock. Both, hopefully will give me pleasure; one entertaining and rewarding, the other tasty and financial. But either way, I expect my investment to pay dividends, no matter what currency (emotional or monetary) they may be.
Mind you, I am not stating it should be regulated. I am saying the similarities are there, and it is a viable comparison. There is, after all, an entire industry based on funding startups, particularly medical and Silicon Valley. They have regulations for those investment firms, millionaires, and moguls. As well as regulations for the startups.
1. I can 'promise' you a big red button and when you hit it, it will say 'you win!'. I can deliever that on time and I can communicate with you. but it doesnt make it a good game. There are plenty of examples of crappy fullfiled promises and plenty of examples of unfilled games that are flat out awesome.
2. my advice when people buy into an early access game is to ignore future plans. if the game experience appears to be fun as it is, buy, else dont. Now I understand that is not the intent, so that is more of an observation but to the part of investing to be frank I think comparing a $20 video game 'investement' to that of Enron I think is silly. Besides, what got Enron into trouble was because THEIR BOOKS...where fake. So maybe it is better to let market forces dictate that instead of the law.
The development of federal securities law was spurred by the stock market crash of 1929, and the resulting Great Depression. In the period leading up to the stock market crash, companies issued stock and enthusiastically promoted the value of their company to induce investors to purchase those securities. Brokers in turn sold this stock to investors based on promises of large profits but with little disclosure of relevant information about the company. In many cases, the promises made by companies and brokers had little or no substantive basis, or were wholly fraudulent. With thousands of investors buying up stock in hopes of huge profits, the market was in a state of speculative frenzy that ended in October 1929, when the market crashed as panicky investors sold off their investments en masse.
In reaction to this calamity and at President Franklin Roosevelt's instigation, Congress set out to enact laws that would prevent speculative frenzies. After a series of hearings that brought to light the severity of the abuses leading to the crash, Congress enacted the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The key theme of the federal securities law is the need to give investors access to information about the securities they buy and the companies that issue securities. Federal securities laws primarily accomplish this by putting the burden on companies to disclose information about themselves and the securities they issue. The efficacy of these disclosure requirements is backed up by broad liability for fraud under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act for both issuers and sellers of securities. Congress intended to ensure that investors had access to balanced, non-fraudulent information.
1. NO! being late, being a fuck up, being not good at what you say you can do is NOT FRAUD! I know plenty of people (one in fact who ALWAYS does it, is just horrible at time management, its not fraud, they just arent good at it.
2. again I say this and it would help out greatly if you gave me a sign that you have read it and understand this critical part (in bold). 'maybe market forces should determine the question of disclouser and not make it a legal REQUIREMENT to do so.' The concerns of someone being dupped into loosing their entire life savings to that of a kickstarter campaign when kickstarter and Early Access has clearly been extreemly SUCCESSFUL seems to be trying to fix a problem that doesnt exist. please tell me that you at least understand my position, dont have to agree with it but understand it. I am not asking why is disclouser good..I am asking why should we make it a legal REQUIREMENT
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Careful what you ask the government to regulate. Obsessive gaming is now a recognized disease. You want them regulating how much you can play?
Yeah absolutely. Lets let the nanny state regulate how long you are allowed to play your games. It's like being a child again except they can do it to you while you're an adult.
It's amazing and disheartening to me that 3/10 people who read that post would actually agree with it. Or that someone would even make it. Don't these people realize that everything the government touches turns to crap?
The government regulates gambling. Does the government tell you how much time and how much money you can spend in a Casino?
Because being told you can't do it at all is so much better than time limits.
Who says you cant do it?
Looks more like where it's allowed and not if it's allowed.
I do wonder, when compared to other pieces of software, where games rank in disclosure and honesty? I mean, I have never seen Microsoft Word promise me something it wasn't going to deliver, nor have I seen it ask for millions of dollars to help it come to fruition. Same is true with the camera software on my iPhone, my messaging app, etc. All of my Google docs and drive folders are exactly what is promised. The maps program in my car did not promise me anything other than what was stated and expected. My Sirius XM radio programs are exactly what was written on the booklet.
I know these are not an exact comparison, but there is a point to be made here; one that was stated earlier: what makes game developers unique?
Just a thought.
One note @ Seanmcad: the reason people keep comparing Kickstarter to financial investments is because they are similar, both in action and consequence. I do not have to invest money in the market, yet if I do, I am at risk of losing some of it. There are regulations investment strategies to help prevent this, but the risk is there. I could keep the money in a savings or retirement account, but I am at risk of losing that too. But again, there are regulations to help prevent this from happening as well as insurance. (Neither is fail-proof though, ask anyone who has had their pension dismantled because an institution didn't control their spending.)
Compare this with Kickstarter. I do not have to put my money in there, but I do. It is an investment, the same as if I invest in an In-&-Out stock. Both, hopefully will give me pleasure; one entertaining and rewarding, the other tasty and financial. But either way, I expect my investment to pay dividends, no matter what currency (emotional or monetary) they may be.
Mind you, I am not stating it should be regulated. I am saying the similarities are there, and it is a viable comparison. There is, after all, an entire industry based on funding startups, particularly medical and Silicon Valley. They have regulations for those investment firms, millionaires, and moguls. As well as regulations for the startups.
1. I can 'promise' you a big red button and when you hit it, it will say 'you win!'. I can deliever that on time and I can communicate with you. but it doesnt make it a good game. There are plenty of examples of crappy fullfiled promises and plenty of examples of unfilled games that are flat out awesome.
2. my advice when people buy into an early access game is to ignore future plans. if the game experience appears to be fun as it is, buy, else dont. Now I understand that is not the intent, so that is more of an observation but to the part of investing to be frank I think comparing a $20 video game 'investement' to that of Enron I think is silly. Besides, what got Enron into trouble was because THEIR BOOKS...where fake. So maybe it is better to let market forces dictate that instead of the law.
The development of federal securities law was spurred by the stock market crash of 1929, and the resulting Great Depression. In the period leading up to the stock market crash, companies issued stock and enthusiastically promoted the value of their company to induce investors to purchase those securities. Brokers in turn sold this stock to investors based on promises of large profits but with little disclosure of relevant information about the company. In many cases, the promises made by companies and brokers had little or no substantive basis, or were wholly fraudulent. With thousands of investors buying up stock in hopes of huge profits, the market was in a state of speculative frenzy that ended in October 1929, when the market crashed as panicky investors sold off their investments en masse.
In reaction to this calamity and at President Franklin Roosevelt's instigation, Congress set out to enact laws that would prevent speculative frenzies. After a series of hearings that brought to light the severity of the abuses leading to the crash, Congress enacted the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The key theme of the federal securities law is the need to give investors access to information about the securities they buy and the companies that issue securities. Federal securities laws primarily accomplish this by putting the burden on companies to disclose information about themselves and the securities they issue. The efficacy of these disclosure requirements is backed up by broad liability for fraud under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act for both issuers and sellers of securities. Congress intended to ensure that investors had access to balanced, non-fraudulent information.
1. NO! being late, being a fuck up, being not good at what you say you can do is NOT FRAUD! I know plenty of people (one in fact who ALWAYS does it, is just horrible at time management, its not fraud, they just arent good at it.
2. again I say this and it would help out greatly if you gave me a sign that you have read it and understand this critical part (in bold). 'maybe market forces should determine the question of disclouser and not make it a legal REQUIREMENT to do so.' The concerns of someone being dupped into loosing their entire life savings to that of a kickstarter campaign when kickstarter and Early Access has clearly been extreemly SUCCESSFUL seems to be trying to fix a problem that doesnt exist. please tell me that you at least understand my position, dont have to agree with it but understand it. I am not asking why is disclouser good..I am asking why should we make it a legal REQUIREMENT
1. NO! being late, being a fuck up, being not good at what you say you can do is NOT FRAUD! I know plenty of people (one in fact who ALWAYS does it, is just horrible at time management, its not fraud, they just arent good at it.
2. again I say this and it would help out greatly if you gave me a sign that you have read it and understand this critical part (in bold). 'maybe market forces should determine the question of disclouser and not make it a legal REQUIREMENT to do so.' The concerns of someone being dupped into loosing their entire life savings to that of a kickstarter campaign when kickstarter and Early Access has clearly been extreemly SUCCESSFUL seems to be trying to fix a problem that doesnt exist. please tell me that you at least understand my position, dont have to agree with it but understand it. I am not asking why is disclouser good..I am asking why should we make it a legal REQUIREMENT
If you lie, your committing a fraud
but its not a lie!!!!!!!!
being late is not a lie not being able to do what you say you can do is not a lie
its not a lie..
when my mother says she will be here at 2pm and I know she can not but she is not aware of that or doesnt believe it and she gets there at 3pm its not a lie, a disfunction yes, but not a lie
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
The only way things will change is if people vote with their wallets. That's it. If you don't want to support a project that may fail, then don't. Early access games can fail, that's part of the risk you take in buying into one and why the price is usually highly discounted from the release price. If you don't agree with a business model, don't buy the game.
Let's take the last item on the list for example. Tell me how you are going to prove that someone sitting at a computer is who they say they are. Simple answer in today's world you can't because we don't use bio sensors and true identities online in today's world. Saying a company is responsible for something you can't even do yourself is beyond stupid. A company should be at fault because mom and dad let their kid have a credit card and they ran up a $5k bill in a month buying digital crap. Give me a break. It is the parents responsibility to monitor their kids not the other way around.
Make sure they do tell you that their game is full of Gambling (RnG!!!)...
Or in this game, we do sell items of power!!! Its a (P2W).
Or, this game doesn't have substantial endgame (Unfinished Product)...
Or what about, you need to perform a rite of passage in this game to enjoy the real stuff (Grinding)...
It will mess up freedom if they regulate what they can do, but if they are force to come open and let us know what we are getting ourselves into. Then I can make better use of my Freedom (my time) in a better way.
SO YA!!! REGULATE THE DAMN THING!
1. just because its the law doesnt mean its a good law. Gambling as being 'illegal' is in my view highly questionable. Why do I not have the right to spend money as I see fit for myself? Why is good spending habits something that should be regulated? making it illegal to be a fool with your money?
2. as it relates to gaming specifically the best outcome you can ever hope for is that it will be banned from children. Not for one second to I believe the motivation of posters here at MMORPG are really primarily concerned about the effects of gambling on children. We all know the motivation is to get gambling out of THEIR gaming experience. So being motivated by a dishonest reason is likely going to make for bad decisions.
3. what people need to concern themselves with (in my view) is not gambling but the marketing around gambling.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2. https://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/sec-disclosure-laws-and-regulations.html
3. Why should companies be legally required to? Another big word coming
***confidence***
What happens when investors lose confidence?
We cant forget to give thanks to the many companies like Enron for the creation and expansion of rules and regulations.
If people were honest we wouldn't need rules and regulations.
How much *confidence* do you have in people being honest?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
2. please dont post a link unless the first sentence says 'yes they need to show the level of detail down to the coffee maker. I am a stock investor, I dont think I can get that information TO THAT LEVEL. dont waste my time, give me specific proof to just what I am talking about please.
3. I say again. Market forces teaches this. That which is good will prevail, that which is bad will not. Developers that do what you suggest IF its helpful WILL become more successful then those who do not. making it a LEGAL REQUIREMENT is the same thing as a centralized moral authority making decisions for everyone else. who will do that?
and buying an early access title is not remotely the same thing as investing.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I am not sure we could see less risk then companies like EA games are taking, I don't see how that is possible.
I agree with you point, we need to vote with out wallets. Whining about lotboxes but still buy both the game and a number of boxes is rather pointless. EA & Activision want you money, they couldn't care less about whining so as long as it is profitable they will try to squeeze everything they can from you.
And regulations just means they will try to find another way to get you paying as much as possible for the game. They might not have much talent for inventing new game mechanics but they are good of inventing stuff for maximizing profits.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
2. Coffee Maker... really? a little extreme are we, I doubt the CEO of Apple or GM could get a 100% accurate accounting of money spent on coffee makers. Why stop at Coffee Makers? How about fucking paper clips.
I own 100% of one company, I'm a silent investor for 25% and 33% of two other companies. I can get any financials I require from those two other companies and If I owned 25% of the stock of any public company, how much you wanna bet I can get any of the financials I want.
If you own 0.00000001% of the stock of a corporation your a pawn, you'd also be surprised at the amount of financial information you are entitled to.
3. Publicly traded companies are legally required to disclose. Charities are legally required to disclose. What the fuck makes a publicly, donor funded software developer more special than everyone else?
Why do you think these disclosure rules came into being in the first place?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
It's amazing and disheartening to me that 3/10 people who read that post would actually agree with it. Or that someone would even make it. Don't these people realize that everything the government touches turns to crap?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
what Goverment touches is a hit and a miss regarding success.
but yes, people should be wary of a centralized authority controlling creative entertainment.
That rarely turns out well, clean water on the other hand lets talk,
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I know these are not an exact comparison, but there is a point to be made here; one that was stated earlier: what makes game developers unique?
Just a thought.
One note @ Seanmcad: the reason people keep comparing Kickstarter to financial investments is because they are similar, both in action and consequence. I do not have to invest money in the market, yet if I do, I am at risk of losing some of it. There are regulations investment strategies to help prevent this, but the risk is there. I could keep the money in a savings or retirement account, but I am at risk of losing that too. But again, there are regulations to help prevent this from happening as well as insurance. (Neither is fail-proof though, ask anyone who has had their pension dismantled because an institution didn't control their spending.)
Compare this with Kickstarter. I do not have to put my money in there, but I do. It is an investment, the same as if I invest in an In-&-Out stock. Both, hopefully will give me pleasure; one entertaining and rewarding, the other tasty and financial. But either way, I expect my investment to pay dividends, no matter what currency (emotional or monetary) they may be.
Mind you, I am not stating it should be regulated. I am saying the similarities are there, and it is a viable comparison. There is, after all, an entire industry based on funding startups, particularly medical and Silicon Valley. They have regulations for those investment firms, millionaires, and moguls. As well as regulations for the startups.
2. my advice when people buy into an early access game is to ignore future plans. if the game experience appears to be fun as it is, buy, else dont. Now I understand that is not the intent, so that is more of an observation but to the part of investing to be frank I think comparing a $20 video game 'investement' to that of Enron I think is silly. Besides, what got Enron into trouble was because THEIR BOOKS...where fake. So maybe it is better to let market forces dictate that instead of the law.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Because being told you can't do it at all is so much better than time limits.
Getting the US government involved in something seems like the last way to make it better, unless you need something blown up and give no craps about the pricetag.
If the contents have real cash value, ok. Then yeah.
But, in most games, they don't. There was the cash shop Auction House that used to exist in D3, but it's gone now. I suppose some of the F2P games where you can trade items for their cash-backed currency, yes you could consider that gambling at that point. But most don't allow you to trade in items for the cash-backed currency, it's for some alternative game-only currency that has no cash value.
Does it suck if you don't get what you want? Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's gambling. Gambling, in my opinion, is a game of risk with a cash (or cash equivalent) payout. For example: Blackjack is just a card game, but you introduce cash (or other value commodity) reward, then it becomes gambling.
You could say that, if you don't get what you want you have to pay for another cash box. That still doesn't make it gambling though - that is still just a game of chance. Unless you can convert those virtual items you win for real, physical value in the real world, I don't see it as gambling.
If we go down the extreme route of saying cash boxes with a % chance for various loot items is gambling - how is that different from, say, a dungeon boss that has a % chance for various loot items?
I think loot boxes suck, sure. But that's why I don't buy them, and I don't think they need to be regulated. Unless your looking at them having a real world value...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/securities_law_history
Securities law history
WHY SECURITIES LAWS?
The development of federal securities law was spurred by the stock market crash of 1929, and the resulting Great Depression. In the period leading up to the stock market crash, companies issued stock and enthusiastically promoted the value of their company to induce investors to purchase those securities. Brokers in turn sold this stock to investors based on promises of large profits but with little disclosure of relevant information about the company. In many cases, the promises made by companies and brokers had little or no substantive basis, or were wholly fraudulent. With thousands of investors buying up stock in hopes of huge profits, the market was in a state of speculative frenzy that ended in October 1929, when the market crashed as panicky investors sold off their investments en masse.
In reaction to this calamity and at President Franklin Roosevelt's instigation, Congress set out to enact laws that would prevent speculative frenzies. After a series of hearings that brought to light the severity of the abuses leading to the crash, Congress enacted the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The key theme of the federal securities law is the need to give investors access to information about the securities they buy and the companies that issue securities. Federal securities laws primarily accomplish this by putting the burden on companies to disclose information about themselves and the securities they issue. The efficacy of these disclosure requirements is backed up by broad liability for fraud under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act for both issuers and sellers of securities. Congress intended to ensure that investors had access to balanced, non-fraudulent information.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
2. again I say this and it would help out greatly if you gave me a sign that you have read it and understand this critical part (in bold). 'maybe market forces should determine the question of disclouser and not make it a legal REQUIREMENT to do so.' The concerns of someone being dupped into loosing their entire life savings to that of a kickstarter campaign when kickstarter and Early Access has clearly been extreemly SUCCESSFUL seems to be trying to fix a problem that doesnt exist.
please tell me that you at least understand my position, dont have to agree with it but understand it. I am not asking why is disclouser good..I am asking why should we make it a legal REQUIREMENT
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Looks more like where it's allowed and not if it's allowed.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
being late is not a lie
not being able to do what you say you can do is not a lie
its not a lie..
when my mother says she will be here at 2pm and I know she can not but she is not aware of that or doesnt believe it and she gets there at 3pm its not a lie, a disfunction yes, but not a lie
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me