Link between LootBoxes and problem gambling proven

Slapshot1188 · September 2018

Interesting read... here is part of the summary:

However, regardless of the direction of causality, the games industry faces a

crisis of conscience. Industry bodies such as the ESRB can no longer claim that

there is little evidence of a link between problem gambling and loot box use. We

call on individual companies within the games industry to remove loot boxes

from their products. When companies include loot boxes in their games, our

results suggest that they are either profting from problem gambling or causing

problem gambling. Loot boxes have no place in video gaming culture.

We also follow Drummond and Sauer in recommending that ratings agencies

incorporate additional parental advisories into games that feature loot boxes. We

recommend that games with loot boxes are restricted to players of legal

gambling age. Given the severity of the link seen here we also strongly

recommend that relevant authorities restrict access to loot boxes as if they were

a form of gambling.

Here is the paper:
https://psyarxiv.com/u5dmr

And here is an article from MassivelyOP that discusses it:
https://massivelyop.com/2018/09/15/uk-researchers-indentify-link-between-lootboxes-and-problem-gambling-suggesting-the-games-industry-faces-a-crisis-of-conscience/
--------------------------------------------------------------

My own take continues to be that they need to give ADULT consumers the information to make informed decisions and then those ADULTS should be able to do what they want. It is also my opinion that these absolutely should be restricted from CHILDREN. Just as Alcohol is restricted. No marketing games to kids and then hiding gambling boxes behind some fake currency of "gems" or "bucks".

Myria · September 2018

From the paper:

We conducted an online survey with a sample of gamers aged 18 or older.

Even if there weren't other obvious methodological issues, and there are several glaringly obvious ones, the fact that it was a self-selected paid online survey is problematic at absolute best.

It's certainly not a paper you can say "proves" much of anything.

Personally I'm not a fan of loot boxes. Or, more accurately, I'm neutral on loot boxes themselves -- I prefer letting others make their own decisions, regardless of what I might think -- but I really dislike how their inclusion inevitably warps game design around them.

However, gamers, as a group, are ultimately responsible for these plagues. Pre-order culture, exclusives, blocking cross-play, loot boxes, and all the rest continue to exist, grow, and thrive in gaming because they work -- if they didn't earn companies insane amount of money (waves to CiG) they would have gone the way of the dodo a long, long time ago.

Predatory game companies, pre-order insanity, loot boxes, we like to bitch about these things whilst they become more and more ingrained in gamerdom. EA is voted the worst company on earth over and over -- itself a laughably ludicrous assertion -- while gamers scream about how they'll never buy an EA game and then, moments later, hand over a credit card to pre-order the latest Battlefield or FIFA.

Our collective actions don't come close to matching our collective voice. As a group, gamers lack anything like self-control.

Turning to government to create the control we, both collectively and, in the main, individually seem unable or unwilling to exercise is inevitably going to lead to unintended consequences. We want government to "clean up" the mess, a mess we blame on everyone but ourselves, but inevitably that control we're asking for isn't going to just limit other people's "bad" choices, but also limit your choices in ways you (in the general, not specific) aren't going to like and aren't going to be able to adequately predict beforehand.

Honestly the gambling argument is one of the most dangerous anyone can make, at least as far as MMOs are concerned. To a non-gamer the difference between paying US$15 for a bunch of loot boxes that might give you something you want and paying US$15 for a subscription that allows you to run a dungeon daily that might give you something you want, well that's a thin line indeed.

JeffSpicoli · September 2018

As someone who loves to gamble and play fantasy sports for real cash i have never had a "problem" with loot boxes in gaming , with that said I DO NOT support gaming company's selling them. See for me, the issue is not "gambling is bad" the issue is greedy scumbag companys trying to nickle and dime the consumer for content that should already be included with the price of the game. These "loot boxes" contain a virtual item that in most cases has no monetary value and thats where real issue is, for me at least.

See i don't mind the loot crates from CSGO that drop skins which can then be resold through the steam marketplace for real cash which in turn you can use to buy games. Those skins from the loot boxes have VALUE. But what EA is doing with their games is corporate thievery on a whole other level.

MadFrenchie · September 2018

Myria said:

From the paper:

We conducted an online survey with a sample of gamers aged 18 or older.
Even if there weren't other obvious methodological issues, and there are several glaringly obvious ones, the fact that it was a self-selected paid online survey is problematic at absolute best.
It's certainly not a paper you can say "proves" much of anything.
Personally I'm not a fan of loot boxes. Or, more accurately, I'm neutral on loot boxes themselves -- I prefer letting others make their own decisions, regardless of what I might think -- but I really dislike how their inclusion inevitably warps game design around them.
However, gamers, as a group, are ultimately responsible for these plagues. Pre-order culture, exclusives, blocking cross-play, loot boxes, and all the rest continue to exist, grow, and thrive in gaming because they work -- if they didn't earn companies insane amount of money (waves to CiG) they would have gone the way of the dodo a long, long time ago.
Predatory game companies, pre-order insanity, loot boxes, we like to bitch about these things whilst they become more and more ingrained in gamerdom. EA is voted the worst company on earth over and over -- itself a laughably ludicrous assertion -- while gamers scream about how they'll never buy an EA game and then, moments later, hand over a credit card to pre-order the latest Battlefield or FIFA.
Our collective actions don't come close to matching our collective voice. As a group, gamers lack anything like self-control.
Turning to government to create the control we, both collectively and, in the main, individually seem unable or unwilling to exercise is inevitably going to lead to unintended consequences. We want government to "clean up" the mess, a mess we blame on everyone but ourselves, but inevitably that control we're asking for isn't going to just limit other people's "bad" choices, but also limit your choices in ways you (in the general, not specific) aren't going to like and aren't going to be able to adequately predict beforehand.
Honestly the gambling argument is one of the most dangerous anyone can make, at least as far as MMOs are concerned. To a non-gamer the difference between paying US$15 for a bunch of loot boxes that might give you something you want and paying US$15 for a subscription that allows you to run a dungeon daily that might give you something you want, well that's a thin line indeed.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you said, but you've presented a flawed comparison between subs and lootboxes, and I don't think the post in general tells the whole story.

Microtransaction monetization intentionally targets a select group of players for the majority of its revenue. The idea that gamers should just signal with their wallets they don't enjoy microtransactions is a flawed one if you don't take into consideration the fact that a large portion of gamers already do vote against mtx with their wallets. It doesn't do any good when a whale is throwing them enough money to pay for you and 10 other players to ride for free.

Subs are very different from lootboxes because a sub decision is made on whether the game as a whole seems fun enough to play. Lootbox microtransactions contain items that encourage folks to buy before they even give the game a fair shake (things like mounts and other covenience items encourage players to "pay their way to fun" by paying to eliminate obvious walls of frustration so they can "get to the fun parts").

When you have entities pooling resources like these publishers do, it's isn't some kind of neutral, even playing field anymore.

Octagon7711 · September 2018

I did loot boxes for awhile. Then reading about how bad the odds are against players and seeing it in practice pretty much steers me away from them in any game. It's like playing a slot machine with lots of bells and whistles and a promise of a big payoff for your spending.

Hluill · September 2018

In pen and paper games, one rolls a die to determine a hit or a miss, success or failure. A randomness has been built into these kinds of games since their inception. It's interesting that many games have removed much of the randomness of combat and crafting. Instead, success is given to gear and levels. But, that randomness is still part of the fun, so loot drops, and now loot boxes seem to replace those mechanics. Some games use randomn loot as their only form of dynamic interaction.

So, I shake my head at the lack of dynamic mechanics for crafting and combat. I mourn their loss. And I sigh at the use of randomn rewards, dropped or bought.

We mark a game for mature audiences if it has smoking or nudity. Yet we cringe if we apply the term gambling to the randomn-reward mechanics that seem so popular in so many, modern games. I see nothing wrong with labeling it for what it is. Let adults decide.

Slapshot1188 · September 2018

Myria said:

From the paper:

Turning to government to create the control we, both collectively and, in the main, individually seem unable or unwilling to exercise is inevitably going to lead to unintended consequences. We want government to "clean up" the mess, a mess we blame on everyone but ourselves, but inevitably that control we're asking for isn't going to just limit other people's "bad" choices, but also limit your choices in ways you (in the general, not specific) aren't going to like and aren't going to be able to adequately predict beforehand.

To me, this is honestly just a very poor argument. Not sure who the "we" you mention is, but it sure as heck isn't ME.

Here is what I said in the OP:
My own take continues to be that they need to give ADULT consumers the information to make informed decisions and then those ADULTS should be able to do what they want. It is also my opinion that these absolutely should be restricted from CHILDREN. Just as Alcohol is restricted. No marketing games to kids and then hiding gambling boxes behind some fake currency of "gems" or "bucks".

Do you see anything wrong with that?

Quizzical · September 2018

Myria is right that that sort of study is problematic. Basically, they want to measure something that is impractical to measure directly, and so they have a survey with self-selecting participants and both the researchers and participants have incentives to want the study to give a particular outcome. That's about as unreliable as "science" gets.

Even so, the conclusion that there is a link between buying lootboxes and problem gambling is probably correct, for reasons having nothing to do with the study. It doesn't make sense to design lootboxes the way that games do unless they're going after problem gamblers.

GeezerGamer · September 2018

Of course there is a link. That's why they are there.

MMORPGs have been after the addict in gamers since.......MMORPGs

sayuu · September 2018

Slapshot1188 said:

Myria said:

From the paper:

Turning to government to create the control we, both collectively and, in the main, individually seem unable or unwilling to exercise is inevitably going to lead to unintended consequences. We want government to "clean up" the mess, a mess we blame on everyone but ourselves, but inevitably that control we're asking for isn't going to just limit other people's "bad" choices, but also limit your choices in ways you (in the general, not specific) aren't going to like and aren't going to be able to adequately predict beforehand.

To me, this is honestly just a very poor argument. Not sure who the "we" you mention is, but it sure as heck isn't ME.

Here is what I said in the OP:
My own take continues to be that they need to give ADULT consumers the information to make informed decisions and then those ADULTS should be able to do what they want. It is also my opinion that these absolutely should be restricted from CHILDREN. Just as Alcohol is restricted. No marketing games to kids and then hiding gambling boxes behind some fake currency of "gems" or "bucks".

Do you see anything wrong with that?

"wont someone think of the children" is also a very poor argument. . .

Wellspring · September 2018

Get rid of loot boxes, Signed!

Horusra · September 2018

"However, it is key to note that the causal direction of this relationship is unclear.

It may be the case that loot boxes cause individuals to become problem

gamblers. It may also be the case that pre-existing gambling problems cause

individuals to spend more money on loot boxes."

Unlike alcohol that had a proven chemical addiction this study does not show that children are at risk to become gamblers from using loot boxes only that people that like to gamble like to spend money on gambling....Not that revolutionary of a study.

TiamatRoar · September 2018

These ghouls at these companies KNEW that loot boxes prey on gambling addictions from the very beginning. Why else would they be more profitable than just selling the item out straight? Of course, because profit is involved, they just didn't care.

Xiaoki · September 2018

Demogorgon said:

sayuu said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Myria said:

From the paper:

Turning to government to create the control we, both collectively and, in the main, individually seem unable or unwilling to exercise is inevitably going to lead to unintended consequences. We want government to "clean up" the mess, a mess we blame on everyone but ourselves, but inevitably that control we're asking for isn't going to just limit other people's "bad" choices, but also limit your choices in ways you (in the general, not specific) aren't going to like and aren't going to be able to adequately predict beforehand.

To me, this is honestly just a very poor argument. Not sure who the "we" you mention is, but it sure as heck isn't ME.

Here is what I said in the OP:
My own take continues to be that they need to give ADULT consumers the information to make informed decisions and then those ADULTS should be able to do what they want. It is also my opinion that these absolutely should be restricted from CHILDREN. Just as Alcohol is restricted. No marketing games to kids and then hiding gambling boxes behind some fake currency of "gems" or "bucks".

Do you see anything wrong with that?

"wont someone think of the children" is also a very poor argument. . .

No it's not. Thank you for showing us you lack a working moral compass.

Theres also a proven link between soda pop and childhood obesity.

So, should we ban Pepsi?

If you dont think we should ban all soda pop then you do not have a working moral compass.

Slapshot1188 · September 2018

Xiaoki said:

Demogorgon said:

sayuu said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Myria said:

From the paper:

Turning to government to create the control we, both collectively and, in the main, individually seem unable or unwilling to exercise is inevitably going to lead to unintended consequences. We want government to "clean up" the mess, a mess we blame on everyone but ourselves, but inevitably that control we're asking for isn't going to just limit other people's "bad" choices, but also limit your choices in ways you (in the general, not specific) aren't going to like and aren't going to be able to adequately predict beforehand.

To me, this is honestly just a very poor argument. Not sure who the "we" you mention is, but it sure as heck isn't ME.

Here is what I said in the OP:
My own take continues to be that they need to give ADULT consumers the information to make informed decisions and then those ADULTS should be able to do what they want. It is also my opinion that these absolutely should be restricted from CHILDREN. Just as Alcohol is restricted. No marketing games to kids and then hiding gambling boxes behind some fake currency of "gems" or "bucks".

Do you see anything wrong with that?

"wont someone think of the children" is also a very poor argument. . .

No it's not. Thank you for showing us you lack a working moral compass.

Theres also a proven link between soda pop and childhood obesity.

So, should we ban Pepsi?

If you dont think we should ban all soda pop then you do not have a working moral compass.

I think there is a difference in how society views each. Gambling is agreed by society to be something that should be limited to adults. Soda pop and obesity are not viewed this way.

I certainly share some concern about the Nanny State, but I also think that it’s wrong to market and target gambling box games to minors. So I personally view this differently than a soda while acknowledging that some could argue a similarity. It’s a judgment item really and to me, alcohol, tobacco and gambling are across the line.

Kyleran · September 2018

Xiaoki said:

Demogorgon said:

sayuu said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Myria said:

From the paper:

Turning to government to create the control we, both collectively and, in the main, individually seem unable or unwilling to exercise is inevitably going to lead to unintended consequences. We want government to "clean up" the mess, a mess we blame on everyone but ourselves, but inevitably that control we're asking for isn't going to just limit other people's "bad" choices, but also limit your choices in ways you (in the general, not specific) aren't going to like and aren't going to be able to adequately predict beforehand.

To me, this is honestly just a very poor argument. Not sure who the "we" you mention is, but it sure as heck isn't ME.

Here is what I said in the OP:
My own take continues to be that they need to give ADULT consumers the information to make informed decisions and then those ADULTS should be able to do what they want. It is also my opinion that these absolutely should be restricted from CHILDREN. Just as Alcohol is restricted. No marketing games to kids and then hiding gambling boxes behind some fake currency of "gems" or "bucks".

Do you see anything wrong with that?

"wont someone think of the children" is also a very poor argument. . .

No it's not. Thank you for showing us you lack a working moral compass.

Theres also a proven link between soda pop and childhood obesity.

So, should we ban Pepsi?

If you dont think we should ban all soda pop then you do not have a working moral compass.

We should definitely ban Pepsi.

Coke Rulez!

Xiaoki · September 2018

Slapshot1188 said:

Xiaoki said:

Demogorgon said:

sayuu said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Myria said:

From the paper:

Turning to government to create the control we, both collectively and, in the main, individually seem unable or unwilling to exercise is inevitably going to lead to unintended consequences. We want government to "clean up" the mess, a mess we blame on everyone but ourselves, but inevitably that control we're asking for isn't going to just limit other people's "bad" choices, but also limit your choices in ways you (in the general, not specific) aren't going to like and aren't going to be able to adequately predict beforehand.

To me, this is honestly just a very poor argument. Not sure who the "we" you mention is, but it sure as heck isn't ME.

Here is what I said in the OP:
My own take continues to be that they need to give ADULT consumers the information to make informed decisions and then those ADULTS should be able to do what they want. It is also my opinion that these absolutely should be restricted from CHILDREN. Just as Alcohol is restricted. No marketing games to kids and then hiding gambling boxes behind some fake currency of "gems" or "bucks".

Do you see anything wrong with that?

"wont someone think of the children" is also a very poor argument. . .

No it's not. Thank you for showing us you lack a working moral compass.

Theres also a proven link between soda pop and childhood obesity.

So, should we ban Pepsi?

If you dont think we should ban all soda pop then you do not have a working moral compass.

I think there is a difference in how society views each. Gambling is agreed by society to be something that should be limited to adults. Soda pop and obesity are not viewed this way.

I certainly share some concern about the Nanny State, but I also think that it’s wrong to market and target gambling box games to minors. So I personally view this differently than a soda while acknowledging that some could argue a similarity. It’s a judgment item really and to me, alcohol, tobacco and gambling are across the line.

Ah, I see.

So, when little Timmy buys $50 in loot boxes for Fortnite its the worst thing ever.

But, when Timmy is overweight and DIES of a heart attack at age 30 because he spent his childhood drinking Mountain Dew and eating McDonalds its ....eh, whatever.

Perhaps you should reevaluate your priorities.

JeffSpicoli · September 2018

Kyleran said:

Xiaoki said:

Demogorgon said:

sayuu said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Myria said:

From the paper:

Turning to government to create the control we, both collectively and, in the main, individually seem unable or unwilling to exercise is inevitably going to lead to unintended consequences. We want government to "clean up" the mess, a mess we blame on everyone but ourselves, but inevitably that control we're asking for isn't going to just limit other people's "bad" choices, but also limit your choices in ways you (in the general, not specific) aren't going to like and aren't going to be able to adequately predict beforehand.

To me, this is honestly just a very poor argument. Not sure who the "we" you mention is, but it sure as heck isn't ME.

Here is what I said in the OP:
My own take continues to be that they need to give ADULT consumers the information to make informed decisions and then those ADULTS should be able to do what they want. It is also my opinion that these absolutely should be restricted from CHILDREN. Just as Alcohol is restricted. No marketing games to kids and then hiding gambling boxes behind some fake currency of "gems" or "bucks".

Do you see anything wrong with that?

"wont someone think of the children" is also a very poor argument. . .

No it's not. Thank you for showing us you lack a working moral compass.

Theres also a proven link between soda pop and childhood obesity.

So, should we ban Pepsi?

If you dont think we should ban all soda pop then you do not have a working moral compass.

We should definitely ban Pepsi.

Coke Rulez!

Something about Pepsi taste artificial, I realize Coke is carbonated sugar water and far from healthy but when i drink Pepsi i feel like im drinking chemicals, Same with Coors light when it comes to beer, taste like pure chemicals.

Manestream · September 2018

Loot Box's are a bane to gaming. If the game REQUIRES you to buy them and use them then i dont bother with said game at all.

When things like in game cash shops made an appearance i condemned them (have never used them) i usually end up leaving said game or just simply boycotting it altogether. No problem to me.
I prefer a 1 month subscription and fully know that everything in game can come my way and know where i stand on cost per month and gameplay. Sadly its all gone money money money and now games are having in game cash shops (that require to be used) game purchase+ expansion packs (at a cost thesedays) and a monthly subscription and also loot crates as well.

I also agree that if players did not use those then yes they would have gone the way of the Dodo practically as quickly as they were implented, but alas people buy them because they cannot help themselves and after a time are so used to it theat it becomes second nature to them and they don't realize how much they are actually spending.
I know 1 person who spent bits here and there 2 or 3 times a week but refused to pay £9 a month for a games monthly subscription because he said it was too much. I asked him how much he spends on these cash shop games and he said not that much, in fact it turned out to be like £50-60 a month and he was shocked

Wizardry · September 2018

This brings me way back before most of you were born.In my region/area they said would never allow casinos because they area blemish on society and cause more harm than good if any good at all.
fast forward many years and just like everything else in this world that is corrupt,pay a few people off,then present reasons why to the press/community then bam...casinos...gambling.

I would say it feels like around 40% that every time i go to a variety/corner store,someone ahead of me is buying lottery tickets/scratch n win tickets.The type of people i see buying them would the personality /stereotype,they look like boring low health people,it seems this is their fun on pay days,scratch some tickets,then get excited over a hundred or so bucks if they win.

There most certainly is a problem with sneaky type gambling,more so than full on regulated gambling casinos because these types such as loot boxes try to get around the very topic and laws surrounding gambling.

Slapshot1188 · September 2018

Xiaoki said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Xiaoki said:

Demogorgon said:

sayuu said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Myria said:

From the paper:

Turning to government to create the control we, both collectively and, in the main, individually seem unable or unwilling to exercise is inevitably going to lead to unintended consequences. We want government to "clean up" the mess, a mess we blame on everyone but ourselves, but inevitably that control we're asking for isn't going to just limit other people's "bad" choices, but also limit your choices in ways you (in the general, not specific) aren't going to like and aren't going to be able to adequately predict beforehand.

To me, this is honestly just a very poor argument. Not sure who the "we" you mention is, but it sure as heck isn't ME.

Here is what I said in the OP:
My own take continues to be that they need to give ADULT consumers the information to make informed decisions and then those ADULTS should be able to do what they want. It is also my opinion that these absolutely should be restricted from CHILDREN. Just as Alcohol is restricted. No marketing games to kids and then hiding gambling boxes behind some fake currency of "gems" or "bucks".

Do you see anything wrong with that?

"wont someone think of the children" is also a very poor argument. . .

No it's not. Thank you for showing us you lack a working moral compass.

Theres also a proven link between soda pop and childhood obesity.

So, should we ban Pepsi?

If you dont think we should ban all soda pop then you do not have a working moral compass.

I think there is a difference in how society views each. Gambling is agreed by society to be something that should be limited to adults. Soda pop and obesity are not viewed this way.

I certainly share some concern about the Nanny State, but I also think that it’s wrong to market and target gambling box games to minors. So I personally view this differently than a soda while acknowledging that some could argue a similarity. It’s a judgment item really and to me, alcohol, tobacco and gambling are across the line.

Ah, I see.

So, when little Timmy buys $50 in loot boxes for Fortnite its the worst thing ever.

But, when Timmy is overweight and DIES of a heart attack at age 30 because he spent his childhood drinking Mountain Dew and eating McDonalds its ....eh, whatever.

Perhaps you should reevaluate your priorities.

Did I make fun of you or your position? Did I say it was "the worst thing ever"?

Currently, SOCIETY views gambling, alcohol, and tobacco differently than obesity. I also clearly said "It's a judgment item" and that while I view it differently I can understand other arguments.

Also, your analogy is silly.

Iselin · September 2018

Myria said:

From the paper:

We conducted an online survey with a sample of gamers aged 18 or older.
Even if there weren't other obvious methodological issues, and there are several glaringly obvious ones, the fact that it was a self-selected paid online survey is problematic at absolute best.
It's certainly not a paper you can say "proves" much of anything.
Personally I'm not a fan of loot boxes. Or, more accurately, I'm neutral on loot boxes themselves -- I prefer letting others make their own decisions, regardless of what I might think -- but I really dislike how their inclusion inevitably warps game design around them.
However, gamers, as a group, are ultimately responsible for these plagues. Pre-order culture, exclusives, blocking cross-play, loot boxes, and all the rest continue to exist, grow, and thrive in gaming because they work -- if they didn't earn companies insane amount of money (waves to CiG) they would have gone the way of the dodo a long, long time ago.
Predatory game companies, pre-order insanity, loot boxes, we like to bitch about these things whilst they become more and more ingrained in gamerdom. EA is voted the worst company on earth over and over -- itself a laughably ludicrous assertion -- while gamers scream about how they'll never buy an EA game and then, moments later, hand over a credit card to pre-order the latest Battlefield or FIFA.
Our collective actions don't come close to matching our collective voice. As a group, gamers lack anything like self-control.
Turning to government to create the control we, both collectively and, in the main, individually seem unable or unwilling to exercise is inevitably going to lead to unintended consequences. We want government to "clean up" the mess, a mess we blame on everyone but ourselves, but inevitably that control we're asking for isn't going to just limit other people's "bad" choices, but also limit your choices in ways you (in the general, not specific) aren't going to like and aren't going to be able to adequately predict beforehand.
Honestly the gambling argument is one of the most dangerous anyone can make, at least as far as MMOs are concerned. To a non-gamer the difference between paying US$15 for a bunch of loot boxes that might give you something you want and paying US$15 for a subscription that allows you to run a dungeon daily that might give you something you want, well that's a thin line indeed.

You started strong with valid criticism of the study's methodology.

But then you started to loose me with the default anti-regulation fear mongering about "unintended consequences." Maybe you could give a couple of examples of plausible negative consequences that may result from regulating this?

Horusra · September 2018

Xiaoki said:

Demogorgon said:

sayuu said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Myria said:

From the paper:

Turning to government to create the control we, both collectively and, in the main, individually seem unable or unwilling to exercise is inevitably going to lead to unintended consequences. We want government to "clean up" the mess, a mess we blame on everyone but ourselves, but inevitably that control we're asking for isn't going to just limit other people's "bad" choices, but also limit your choices in ways you (in the general, not specific) aren't going to like and aren't going to be able to adequately predict beforehand.

To me, this is honestly just a very poor argument. Not sure who the "we" you mention is, but it sure as heck isn't ME.

Here is what I said in the OP:
My own take continues to be that they need to give ADULT consumers the information to make informed decisions and then those ADULTS should be able to do what they want. It is also my opinion that these absolutely should be restricted from CHILDREN. Just as Alcohol is restricted. No marketing games to kids and then hiding gambling boxes behind some fake currency of "gems" or "bucks".

Do you see anything wrong with that?

"wont someone think of the children" is also a very poor argument. . .

No it's not. Thank you for showing us you lack a working moral compass.

Theres also a proven link between soda pop and childhood obesity.

So, should we ban Pepsi?

If you dont think we should ban all soda pop then you do not have a working moral compass.

New York City is doing their best to ban it.

Horusra · September 2018

Currently US is going the opposite way of Europe on Gambling making it more accessible to people

FrodoFragins · September 2018

Just because the rewards aren't cash, that doesn't mean it's not gambling. If current laws don't properly treat this as gambling then the laws need to change.

Even GGG uses these things to take advantage of players

Renoaku · September 2018

I do agree loot-box are a problem not so much in games like Overwatch but ESO, TERA, Mobile APPS, ZMR, any game with heavily P2E / P2W should not be allowed although people should have control over what they spend, young people can spend their life savings on Loot-Box thus gambling.

There are ways to fix this though and that is to put in a way for people to sell and trade loot-Box items like in PUBG.

Howdy, Stranger!

Link between LootBoxes and problem gambling proven

Comments

Aloha Mr Hand !

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Aloha Mr Hand !

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Link between LootBoxes and problem gambling proven

Comments

Aloha Mr Hand !

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Aloha Mr Hand !