Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
It has been argued in academics over the history of games that it point of games is for one in a safe way test their skills against randomness.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
Which is a completely separate issue from lootbox monetization. RNG in games isn't inherently bad, unless used in a terrible way. Case in point: the aforementioned lootbox being one example of a terrible use of RNG.
but laserit does not agree with you on that. I have been argueing with him for a day based on how you see it and then understood that he does not agree with you on that point.
because I dont want to re-type it all, if you want to see my view on the monization part of it read some of the previous posts. I think its absurd to suggest because monization is involved THAT is what makes it a medical condition related to addiction.
That's not what I said.
I said that RNG isn't inherently bad, it depends upon how it's used. That's true for many things.
Tobacco isn't inherently bad, but if you dry it, roll it, and smoke it, it's bad for you. Thus, regulation of tobacco as a smoking product.
Whether or not the item is inherently detrimental is irrelevant, it's the effect of its usage that's always been the cause for regulations.
if I am addicted to video games and my personal relationships go to shit and I loose my job, its usage has an effect does it not?
Alcohol is addictive and it can affect my personal realtionships, my bank account, my job and the safety of others, should it be banned and regulated as well?
Dopamine is addictive and it can affect my personal realtionships, my bank account, my job and the safety of others. Should we ban dopamine?
Your reductio ad absurdum is not an effective counter-argument.
addiction is related to dopamine. dopamine is what we need in our brain to live as well as be happy. Without it we can literally die with low levels of it we are unhappy.
we can not ban all things that are addictive (which by definition has to have a material negative impact on a person or others around them). So really the entire conversation about trying to ban addictive substances is in of itself a silly one to begin with.
but that much aside, if gambling is addictive, money or not, for it to be addictive it WILL have a negative impact on the person. but what right does the government have to ban me from producing a negative impact on myself in the first place?
so multiple holes that require 1. a person to not be intellectually lazy when addressing and 2. complete honesty.
i am not suggesting people are, I am just reminding people this is big boy stuff
An addiction is a vulnerability. It's something that you have no self control over.
Gambling regulations have nothing to do with controlling the addiction. They are all about limiting the ways in which others can exploit that addiction.
If your addicted to gambling... Regulation limits me from exploiting you.
Governments have learned time and time again that prohibitions do not work. Anyone arguing for a prohibition is foolish.
All we have to do is look at how that war on drugs is coming along.
An addiction is a vulnerability. It's something that you have no self control over.
Gambling regulations have nothing to do with controlling the addiction. They are all about limiting the ways in which others can exploit that addiction.
If your addicted to gambling... Regulation limits me from exploiting you.
Governments have learned time and time again that prohibitions do not work. Anyone arguing for a prohibition is foolish.
All we have to do is look at how that war on drugs is coming along.
so we need to regulate the use of video games because video games themselves are addictive.
again...dopamine. Anything and everything that makes you smile for a job well done, from gambling to working nights....is addictive.
so why gambling? should we regulate working too much as well?
I am going to go out on a limb here and say this
you guys want gambling out of video games because its a bad game design, it makes your gaming experience less pleasant and you want to see it gone. TOTALLY reasonable, TOTALLY believable. you cant however, make a bad developer into a good developer by micro-managing their design choices thru legislation. you need to not buy the games
its not about addictions and its not about kids
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
An addiction is a vulnerability. It's something that you have no self control over.
Gambling regulations have nothing to do with controlling the addiction. They are all about limiting the ways in which others can exploit that addiction.
If your addicted to gambling... Regulation limits me from exploiting you.
Governments have learned time and time again that prohibitions do not work. Anyone arguing for a prohibition is foolish.
All we have to do is look at how that war on drugs is coming along.
so we need to regulate the use of video games because video games themselves are addictive.
again...dopamine. Anything and everything that makes you smile for a job well done, from gambling to working nights....is addictive.
so why gambling? should we regulate working too much as well?
I am going to go out on a limb here and say this
you guys want gambling out of video games because its a bad game design, it makes your gaming experience less pleasant and you want to see it gone. TOTALLY reasonable, TOTALLY believable.
its not about addictions and its not about kids
"so we need to regulate the use of video games"
Either I'm terrible at explaining things or your reading comprehension sucks.
Take your pick
Regulating the use of video games is as impossible as regulating the use of alcohol, narcotics, gambling, or anything else under the sun.
An addiction is a vulnerability. It's something that you have no self control over.
Gambling regulations have nothing to do with controlling the addiction. They are all about limiting the ways in which others can exploit that addiction.
If your addicted to gambling... Regulation limits me from exploiting you.
Governments have learned time and time again that prohibitions do not work. Anyone arguing for a prohibition is foolish.
All we have to do is look at how that war on drugs is coming along.
so we need to regulate the use of video games because video games themselves are addictive.
again...dopamine. Anything and everything that makes you smile for a job well done, from gambling to working nights....is addictive.
so why gambling? should we regulate working too much as well?
I am going to go out on a limb here and say this
you guys want gambling out of video games because its a bad game design, it makes your gaming experience less pleasant and you want to see it gone. TOTALLY reasonable, TOTALLY believable.
its not about addictions and its not about kids
"so we need to regulate the use of video games"
Either I'm terrible at explaining things or your reading comprehension sucks.
Take your pick
Regulating the use of video games is as impossible as regulating the use of alcohol, narcotics, gambling, or anything else under the sun.
no its not.
it painfully easy to regulate video games and restrict use because of fear of being happy.
for the third time I want to stress this point because its really an immutable point that drills a massive hole in the entire conversation of addiction.
Dopamine. If you smile because of a well done job at work..its a dopamine kick. If you see your son win a football game its a dopamine kick. If your minister praises you for work well done volunteering its a domaine kick. All of those things are addictive to a person who is an addictive personality
Addiction is a condition of the person that needs treatment, you cant ban fucking domaine!!!!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
so where is the line? should the government ensure thru legislation that I wear the proper gear when going out in the cold or should I learn that from my mother?
That is regulated.
As a child, your mother has a legal obligation to ensure that you dress warmly in cold weather in order to prevent you coming to harm.
As an adult, its your own choice whether you want to dress properly or not.
A video game has been argued to be highly addictive and highly damaging to people who are addicted, so why gambling with money but not video games or gambling without money? because I will go broke? maybe the goverment should tell me what to spend money on?
You are trying to make it sound like a black and white issue, but you know it's not.
When assessing whether to regulate something, the government has to consider the issue from every single possible angle. It's not enough to say "it's addictive, therefore let's regulate it".
They must consider:
Is it physically or psychologically addictive, or both?
What is the mechanism involved for becoming addicted?
What is the impact of becoming addicted?
How prevalent is the issue?
What options are there for preventing addiction?
What is the impact of all these options?
Most things can become addictive, but usually only psychologically addictive, not physically. Stuff that is physically addictive, like nicotine, heroin etc, tends to be easier to assess and regulate.
Stuff that is psychologically addictive is a much harder cookie to crack. In the overwhelming majority of cases, there isn't a set mechanism for becoming addicted which means that you can't regulate it.
So, gaming addiction for example. It's estimated that there are now 2 billion people on the planet who regularly game. An extremely small percentage become addicted. An even smaller percentage experience significant damage. There is also no set route for becoming addicted - it is usually related to specific personalities and events in a person's life.
This means you wouldn't regulate gaming in order to prevent gaming addiction, because there is no real reason to do so.
That's not the case with gambling. With gambling, there is a clear mechanism for causing the addiction. There are clear impacts, one of which is your brain actually changes. The problem is prevalent and we've already found plausible solutions.
So, to most of us, regulating paid-for-lootboxes is a no-brainer. As a society, we've already decided that we should regulate them, its just that games developers are essentially exploiting a loophole to avoid regulation. We want to close that loophole.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
so where is the line? should the government ensure thru legislation that I wear the proper gear when going out in the cold or should I learn that from my mother?
That is regulated.
As a child, your mother has a legal obligation to ensure that you dress warmly in cold weather in order to prevent you coming to harm.
As an adult, its your own choice whether you want to dress properly or not.
sorry but that is obfuscation and you know it.
you are trying to build the case that gambling in video games is justified to be banned because everything in the universe is regulated either directly or indirectly (like your kid example) and should be regulated and I am not having any of it.
sorry try again
I really want people to be honest about this.
you know the intent of my example, please dont obfucate the intent by abstracting.
lets keep this conversation about addiction, and regulation related to addiction. its a complex subject and easy to derail but please lets focus and be honest
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
It has been argued in academics over the history of games that it point of games is for one in a safe way test their skills against randomness.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
It's good if you aren't paying for it in game.
yes but laserit does NOT agree with that point and clarified that with me.
his position is that its addictive REGARDLESS of the money. I think its absurd to suggest that its ONLY addictive if money is involved.
so we actually kinda agree I guess.
Human psychology varies. it could become more addictive with real money for some because it is bigger thrill.
But I think the the problem is the side effect, but now which one is more addictive. For example heroin is more dangerous than marijuana because it cause more harm.
no I think absurd.
Look the argument can and HAS been made that video games themselves are addictive. so trying to make the argument that gambling, but not just any gambling but gambling that involves money is more addictive then video games themselves is going to be a real hard sell to anyone who has any medical background at all. Money doesn't automagically create a fucking medical condition.
Nah bro. Smoking is addictive but we allow it because it is not that harmful. But we bane Flakka because people using it become crazy and start injuring themselves and others.
Problem is not with how addictive it is. Problem is how harmful it is.
We allow videogame even though it is addictive because there isn't that much harm playing video game.
That being said, I think most people want loot box ban because they don't like pay to win games. They personally never buy loot box, and don't really care about the well being of others that buy loot box.
we cant regulate record shopping even though its addictive (which it is and I can build that case with an example if you like). we WOULD if we could to protect addicts but we cant, we have to fight that battle another day. But we CAN regulate gambling so we should.
I think that is the position you are trying to build
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
It has been argued in academics over the history of games that it point of games is for one in a safe way test their skills against randomness.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
It's good if you aren't paying for it in game.
yes but laserit does NOT agree with that point and clarified that with me.
his position is that its addictive REGARDLESS of the money. I think its absurd to suggest that its ONLY addictive if money is involved.
so we actually kinda agree I guess.
Human psychology varies. it could become more addictive with real money for some because it is bigger thrill.
But I think the the problem is the side effect, but now which one is more addictive. For example heroin is more dangerous than marijuana because it cause more harm.
no I think absurd.
Look the argument can and HAS been made that video games themselves are addictive. so trying to make the argument that gambling, but not just any gambling but gambling that involves money is more addictive then video games themselves is going to be a real hard sell to anyone who has any medical background at all. Money doesn't automagically create a fucking medical condition.
Nah bro. Smoking is addictive but we allow it because it is not that harmful. But we bane Flakka because people using it become crazy and start injuring themselves and others.
Problem is not with how addictive it is. Problem is how harmful it is.
We allow videogame even though it is addictive because there isn't that much harm playing video game.
That being said, I think most people want loot box ban because they don't like pay to win games. They personally never buy loot box, and don't really care about the well being of others that buy loot box.
There is a famous doctor who works with addiction, he has written a book and has decades of experience treating addiction.
he himself was an addict. you know what too? shopping for records.
so we have to regulate to protect people from shopping? (in the context of addiction)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Yes, I said something I thought I would never say but it's quite clear that game development companies no longer have the ability to focus on creating quality games. Over the past 5 years the focus has changed from creating entertainment that sells to creating revenue schemes targeting consumers and not delivering on product. Before you flame take a look at the following ideas for regulation:
1. Games advertised as 'Early Access' and accept money in exchange for allowing a gamer to play the game before release must publicly state a release date. If that date is not met or changed at any time then the game company must offer a full refund to the gamer at the gamers request.
2. Games implementing loot boxes must publicly post the odds of winning each item in the item pool. Loot boxes will be classified as gambling and will be taxed as such, all revenue generated from loot boxes must be reported for tax purposes. All items which gamers are gambling for must be public knowledge including an item description and abilities of the item. Game companies that update or change item abilities after being won in the loot box gambling system must offer a refund to the gamer if requested.
3. Every non consumable item (mounts, clothing, weapons) available for purchase through an online cash shop must include a target expiration date. If a game is shutdown by the gaming company before the expiration date of item purchased then the game company is responsible to reimburse the gamer for the item purchased.
4. Purchasing made through online shops or any other avenue must be approved by a consenting adult. Gross purchases made without adult approval is subject to 100% refund upon request. The game company must show that a consenting adult has made the purchase.
These are just some starting ideas but I think you get the picture as to why we now need something like this. Gamers are severely getting ripped off across all types of games and I hate to say it but we now need some kind of consumer protection.
No damn way. Oh man to be young and naive again. The government, at least in the United States will never stop at just the things YOU want to be regulated. This victim mentality is disgusting.
It will start there, with stupid ass shit like this, and it will end with us paying a buck every time we want to send an e-mail. I firmly believe it is going to happen because of ignorant statements like what OP is putting out, but as a community, we should hold it off for as long as possible not invite them in. Once "they" are in and can figure out how to force us to pay for their 'services' it will be the end of this.
If gamers are getting ripped off, it's because they need to educate themselves more. If you don't like loot boxes, then don't play the game.
This is more of the "I am owed this" attitude that is frankly, sickening. If you don't like the game then don't play it. If enough people would stop trying to bitch game companies into making their utopia game, ie start voting with their wallet, then these things would go away. The reason loot boxes are becoming more prevalent? because people keep buying them. It's pretty simple.
At some point you will need to grow up and start taking responsibility for your actions, you can't ask others, especially the government to hold your hand because of its a big scary world. Grow up, hold yourself accountable for your bad decisions, learn from your mistakes and grow. Don't be a victim.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
so where is the line? should the government ensure thru legislation that I wear the proper gear when going out in the cold or should I learn that from my mother?
That is regulated.
As a child, your mother has a legal obligation to ensure that you dress warmly in cold weather in order to prevent you coming to harm.
As an adult, its your own choice whether you want to dress properly or not.
sorry but that is obfuscation and you know it.
you are trying to build the case that gambling in video games is justified to be banned because everything in the universe is regulated either directly or indirectly (like your kid example) and should be regulated and I am not having any of it.
sorry try again
I really want people to be honest about this.
you know the intent of my example, please dont obfucate the intent by abstracting
The point of the kid's clothing example was to highlight the similarity to the protecting kids argument with regards to gambling.
Going out in the cold without adequate clothing is harmful = gambling is harmful As an adult, I can choose to go naked in the snow = as an adult, I can gamble As a child, there are government regulations that force adults to protect me from the cold =/= as a child, I am not protected from the harms of gambling in computer games
The argument essentially boils down to:
Gambling is harmful
Regulations exist to protect children from gambling and to inform adults that they are participating in a harmful activity
Game developers are exploiting a loophole so that they don't have to follow regulations
We want to close that loophole
From everything you've posted, it seems that you don't think gambling is harmful, you don't think children should be protected from harm and you don't think it's the governments job to protect it's own citizens. So, no argument any of us can make will persuade you otherwise.
As a final point, I notice you are still enjoying straw man arguments and putting words into other people's mouths. Regulations are not the same thing as banning. We're arguing for regulations, you are arguing against banning. Those are two separate arguments.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
so where is the line? should the government ensure thru legislation that I wear the proper gear when going out in the cold or should I learn that from my mother?
That is regulated.
As a child, your mother has a legal obligation to ensure that you dress warmly in cold weather in order to prevent you coming to harm.
As an adult, its your own choice whether you want to dress properly or not.
sorry but that is obfuscation and you know it.
you are trying to build the case that gambling in video games is justified to be banned because everything in the universe is regulated either directly or indirectly (like your kid example) and should be regulated and I am not having any of it.
sorry try again
I really want people to be honest about this.
you know the intent of my example, please dont obfucate the intent by abstracting
The point of the kid's clothing example was to highlight the similarity to the protecting kids argument with regards to gambling.
..
this conversation is far to delicate and hard for people to understand to start throwing around every regulation from water pollution to seat belts when I was just trying to make a general point of which you fully understood I am confident. I stop reading the second it gets.
Domaine is a GOOD thing, we need it, we want it, it makes life good.
its also what people are addicted to who have addictions. we cant regulate that away by removing domaine from the equation.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
here is what I am extremely confident is the reality
people posting here where hyped about BF2, they are hyped about other games. They do not like to see gambling in their games because it makes for a bad gaming experience but at the same time they like the IPs they have been playing and they see more and more developers doing it or at least afraid that they are going to do it.
THAT is the real concern here, there might be a solution but regulating a bad developer who makes bad design choices into a good one regulation by regulation isnt going to work.
so time is better spent thinking of a DIFFERENT solution
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Does the government really need to play the role of babysitter for the entire game industry and their consumers because a few people have addiction issues.
All that is required is personal and parental responsibility for the vast majority, and personal vigilance for those few that face these self-control challenges beyond the norm.
Since when is "RNG for reward" required for a good game? anyone who says that must play a very limited type of games. For most competitive games, keeping RNG away is a requirement for it to be good. Starcraft, Counter-Strike and Quake are just some examples where you definitely don't want RNG playing a role in the outcome.
Even in the types of games where RNG is traditionally used to hand out rewards like MMORPGs and ARPGs I don't see "RNG for reward" as a requirement. You could have bosses and mobs drop a fixed amount of currency and/or crafting materials and it would work perfectly fine.
It has been argued in academics over the history of games that it point of games is for one in a safe way test their skills against randomness.
now, dont fixate on that too much, instead ask yourself. How much randomness is in the game you played this week? pick any game, look at what aspects of it is random.
I played Elite Dangerous last night, when I fly into a zone that is hot, I have no idea who is in there, I have no idea what I will get when I shoot one down, I have no idea what the bounty is like. Its random, its part of the attraction
It's good if you aren't paying for it in game.
yes but laserit does NOT agree with that point and clarified that with me.
his position is that its addictive REGARDLESS of the money. I think its absurd to suggest that its ONLY addictive if money is involved.
so we actually kinda agree I guess.
Human psychology varies. it could become more addictive with real money for some because it is bigger thrill.
But I think the the problem is the side effect, but now which one is more addictive. For example heroin is more dangerous than marijuana because it cause more harm.
no I think absurd.
Look the argument can and HAS been made that video games themselves are addictive. so trying to make the argument that gambling, but not just any gambling but gambling that involves money is more addictive then video games themselves is going to be a real hard sell to anyone who has any medical background at all. Money doesn't automagically create a fucking medical condition.
Nah bro. Smoking is addictive but we allow it because it is not that harmful. But we bane Flakka because people using it become crazy and start injuring themselves and others.
Problem is not with how addictive it is. Problem is how harmful it is.
We allow videogame even though it is addictive because there isn't that much harm playing video game.
That being said, I think most people want loot box ban because they don't like pay to win games. They personally never buy loot box, and don't really care about the well being of others that buy loot box.
There is a famous doctor who works with addiction, he has written a book and has decades of experience treating addiction.
he himself was an addict. you know what too? shopping for records.
so we have to regulate to protect people from shopping? (in the context of addiction)
A better example is real gambling. Everyone knows the harm of gambling and there are people who commit suicide in vegas. But we still allow it.
Today that would not be considered an addiction. It might be considered an abuse. They have some different treatments and a different locus of control.
I would guess it would actually have a different psychological classification though.
If your talking about Dr mark Griffiths. He says he is not addicted.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
Gambling regulations have nothing to do with controlling the addiction. They are all about limiting the ways in which others can exploit that addiction.
If your addicted to gambling... Regulation limits me from exploiting you.
Governments have learned time and time again that prohibitions do not work. Anyone arguing for a prohibition is foolish.
All we have to do is look at how that war on drugs is coming along.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
again...dopamine. Anything and everything that makes you smile for a job well done, from gambling to working nights....is addictive.
so why gambling? should we regulate working too much as well?
I am going to go out on a limb here and say this
you guys want gambling out of video games because its a bad game design, it makes your gaming experience less pleasant and you want to see it gone. TOTALLY reasonable, TOTALLY believable.
you cant however, make a bad developer into a good developer by micro-managing their design choices thru legislation. you need to not buy the games
its not about addictions and its not about kids
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Either I'm terrible at explaining things or your reading comprehension sucks.
Take your pick
Regulating the use of video games is as impossible as regulating the use of alcohol, narcotics, gambling, or anything else under the sun.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
it painfully easy to regulate video games and restrict use because of fear of being happy.
for the third time I want to stress this point because its really an immutable point that drills a massive hole in the entire conversation of addiction.
Dopamine. If you smile because of a well done job at work..its a dopamine kick. If you see your son win a football game its a dopamine kick. If your minister praises you for work well done volunteering its a domaine kick. All of those things are addictive to a person who is an addictive personality
Addiction is a condition of the person that needs treatment, you cant ban fucking domaine!!!!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
As a child, your mother has a legal obligation to ensure that you dress warmly in cold weather in order to prevent you coming to harm.
As an adult, its your own choice whether you want to dress properly or not.
Again, there is an absolute shit-ton of regulation about how you're allowed to spend your money.
You are trying to make it sound like a black and white issue, but you know it's not.
When assessing whether to regulate something, the government has to consider the issue from every single possible angle. It's not enough to say "it's addictive, therefore let's regulate it".
They must consider:
- Is it physically or psychologically addictive, or both?
- What is the mechanism involved for becoming addicted?
- What is the impact of becoming addicted?
- How prevalent is the issue?
- What options are there for preventing addiction?
- What is the impact of all these options?
Most things can become addictive, but usually only psychologically addictive, not physically. Stuff that is physically addictive, like nicotine, heroin etc, tends to be easier to assess and regulate.Stuff that is psychologically addictive is a much harder cookie to crack. In the overwhelming majority of cases, there isn't a set mechanism for becoming addicted which means that you can't regulate it.
So, gaming addiction for example. It's estimated that there are now 2 billion people on the planet who regularly game. An extremely small percentage become addicted. An even smaller percentage experience significant damage. There is also no set route for becoming addicted - it is usually related to specific personalities and events in a person's life.
This means you wouldn't regulate gaming in order to prevent gaming addiction, because there is no real reason to do so.
That's not the case with gambling. With gambling, there is a clear mechanism for causing the addiction. There are clear impacts, one of which is your brain actually changes. The problem is prevalent and we've already found plausible solutions.
So, to most of us, regulating paid-for-lootboxes is a no-brainer. As a society, we've already decided that we should regulate them, its just that games developers are essentially exploiting a loophole to avoid regulation. We want to close that loophole.
you know the intent of my example, please dont obfucate the intent by abstracting.
lets keep this conversation about addiction, and regulation related to addiction. its a complex subject and easy to derail but please lets focus and be honest
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Problem is not with how addictive it is. Problem is how harmful it is.
We allow videogame even though it is addictive because there isn't that much harm playing video game.
That being said, I think most people want loot box ban because they don't like pay to win games. They personally never buy loot box, and don't really care about the well being of others that buy loot box.
I think what you are trying to build is this:
we cant regulate record shopping even though its addictive (which it is and I can build that case with an example if you like). we WOULD if we could to protect addicts but we cant, we have to fight that battle another day. But we CAN regulate gambling so we should.
I think that is the position you are trying to build
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
he himself was an addict. you know what too? shopping for records.
so we have to regulate to protect people from shopping? (in the context of addiction)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Adrenaline junkies are not addicted to their adrenaline. There is no such thing as an addictive personality.
Something must cause the receptor to disregulate.
Repeatedly smiling will not do this.
It will start there, with stupid ass shit like this, and it will end with us paying a buck every time we want to send an e-mail. I firmly believe it is going to happen because of ignorant statements like what OP is putting out, but as a community, we should hold it off for as long as possible not invite them in. Once "they" are in and can figure out how to force us to pay for their 'services' it will be the end of this.
If gamers are getting ripped off, it's because they need to educate themselves more. If you don't like loot boxes, then don't play the game.
This is more of the "I am owed this" attitude that is frankly, sickening. If you don't like the game then don't play it. If enough people would stop trying to bitch game companies into making their utopia game, ie start voting with their wallet, then these things would go away. The reason loot boxes are becoming more prevalent? because people keep buying them. It's pretty simple.
At some point you will need to grow up and start taking responsibility for your actions, you can't ask others, especially the government to hold your hand because of its a big scary world. Grow up, hold yourself accountable for your bad decisions, learn from your mistakes and grow. Don't be a victim.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Going out in the cold without adequate clothing is harmful = gambling is harmful
As an adult, I can choose to go naked in the snow = as an adult, I can gamble
As a child, there are government regulations that force adults to protect me from the cold =/= as a child, I am not protected from the harms of gambling in computer games
The argument essentially boils down to:
From everything you've posted, it seems that you don't think gambling is harmful, you don't think children should be protected from harm and you don't think it's the governments job to protect it's own citizens. So, no argument any of us can make will persuade you otherwise.
As a final point, I notice you are still enjoying straw man arguments and putting words into other people's mouths. Regulations are not the same thing as banning. We're arguing for regulations, you are arguing against banning. Those are two separate arguments.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Domaine is a GOOD thing, we need it, we want it, it makes life good.
its also what people are addicted to who have addictions. we cant regulate that away by removing domaine from the equation.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
people posting here where hyped about BF2, they are hyped about other games. They do not like to see gambling in their games because it makes for a bad gaming experience but at the same time they like the IPs they have been playing and they see more and more developers doing it or at least afraid that they are going to do it.
THAT is the real concern here, there might be a solution but regulating a bad developer who makes bad design choices into a good one regulation by regulation isnt going to work.
so time is better spent thinking of a DIFFERENT solution
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
All that is required is personal and parental responsibility for the vast majority, and personal vigilance for those few that face these self-control challenges beyond the norm.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I would guess it would actually have a different psychological classification though.
If your talking about Dr mark Griffiths. He says he is not addicted.