The topic is, in case anyone's forgotten, loot boxes being investigated by the FTC.
Thanks for cooperating.
I wouldn't say it is really diverting from the topic since that is all what this affair boils down to.
Your post was very much in the same tone, the only difference is how you come by in attempt to justify it.
In either case, you are trying to justify unjustifiable - just because you do not like something does not give you right to deny it to people who do not share your opinion.
In Denmark where I am from- We had an issue where a son using his dads card on app store- bought a pair of pants for this avatar, in a game called subway surfer -or I think it was that game. He paid 10.000 DKK which is equivalent to 1.512,88 USD. When the publisher was confronted by the news media he said- its not our fault that the dad didnt have restrictions in app store- and never gave a refund lol.
How is it their fault a dad didnt have restrictions? That's like saying it's the beer companies fault the guy drove drunk and killed someone.
I dont understand how personal responsibility has completely gone away.
Not saying its their fault. I just shared the story!
We should bake them a cake!
We shouldnt post a stupid story that makes it sound like they are the bad guy in that story either.
That response is over the top. People are allowed to have a difference of opinion and having a different opinion on a subject doesn't grant you the right to be insulting.
Are you saying only those with opinions you agree with are allowed to post here? Cause the way he put his "story " in my OPINION purposely put blame on the developers. So I called it out as my OPINION saw it.
His reply was also snarky "we shouldnt bake them a cake" again saying they hold some blame. I dont see you making a comment on that probably because again it's an opinion you agree with.
Btw I'm searching all over for this "story" and not finding it. Be an interesting twist is his story was a lie hmm...
No, she's saying quit being a fucking asshole when it's uncalled for.
Historically, being a smartass to mods, getting called on it, then trying to force the mods' hands against another user, never ends well for the poster.
I'm on mobile I didnt know they were a "mod" and to be honest that would not have changed my reply. Am i supposed to hold mods on this site to a different standard? If they want to call me out for my opinion on a story i cant find any proof of I will reply as I see fit. Are you a mod? Am i supposed to go easy on you? Or am I going to "force your hand"?
You can hold mods in whatever regard you like; it won't change that she called you out because you were being an asshole to Mensur unnecessarily and you responded with more snark.
Then, when you got called on it again by another poster (me, less diplomatically than Suzie), you tried to call her out about responding to it.
That has never worked in the poster's favor in the past. Suzie and the gang here aren't stupid, and they can see right through that shit.
Ok serious question.
Would the reply you sent me be left on this site if say I wrote it? I'm being serious nothing against you or others who seem to have some pull around here but it does seem there is a double standard.
If I had posted like an asshole for no real reason, and you called me on it? Likely not. Or likely, as my post might be, it would simply be edited and/or given a warning (I've had multiple warnings in my time here).
The mods here aren't robots, and they have generally considered context when assessing posts, even if they disagree with the post's wording.
Fair enough...
Fyi my post that started this wasn't as bad as you guys have made it out to be. I'm still looking for the "story" btw like I said it would be an interesting twist here if that story ended up being a lie.
How many apologies would I get:)
I think it was a matter if Mensur simply sharing something he heard/read and your post immediately implying ulterior motives.
I feel like you could've called that into question without making the assumption he was trying to be sneaky. Maybe he misremembered, or maybe it was word-of-mouth that got exaggerated.
There are a lot of perfectly innocent reasons for not finding his story. Tell him you can't find any news of it, and I don't think Suzie or many others would think that was rude or insulting. Assigning a judgement on his motives immediately when he seemingly never even followed the story with an opinion on the issue at hand is what made your post seem unnecessarily rude and aggressive.
Understood...I'm going to respect the mod and stick to the subject at hand though and leave this conversation for another time.
On topic:
I'm curious to your response about loot boxes being debatable. I replied with some links. Ignore my snarky comment at the end
In Denmark where I am from- We had an issue where a son using his dads card on app store- bought a pair of pants for this avatar, in a game called subway surfer -or I think it was that game. He paid 10.000 DKK which is equivalent to 1.512,88 USD. When the publisher was confronted by the news media he said- its not our fault that the dad didnt have restrictions in app store- and never gave a refund lol.
How is it their fault a dad didnt have restrictions? That's like saying it's the beer companies fault the guy drove drunk and killed someone.
I dont understand how personal responsibility has completely gone away.
Not saying its their fault. I just shared the story!
We should bake them a cake!
We shouldnt post a stupid story that makes it sound like they are the bad guy in that story either.
That response is over the top. People are allowed to have a difference of opinion and having a different opinion on a subject doesn't grant you the right to be insulting.
Are you saying only those with opinions you agree with are allowed to post here? Cause the way he put his "story " in my OPINION purposely put blame on the developers. So I called it out as my OPINION saw it.
His reply was also snarky "we shouldnt bake them a cake" again saying they hold some blame. I dont see you making a comment on that probably because again it's an opinion you agree with.
Btw I'm searching all over for this "story" and not finding it. Be an interesting twist is his story was a lie hmm...
No, she's saying quit being a fucking asshole when it's uncalled for.
Historically, being a smartass to mods, getting called on it, then trying to force the mods' hands against another user, never ends well for the poster.
I'm on mobile I didnt know they were a "mod" and to be honest that would not have changed my reply. Am i supposed to hold mods on this site to a different standard? If they want to call me out for my opinion on a story i cant find any proof of I will reply as I see fit. Are you a mod? Am i supposed to go easy on you? Or am I going to "force your hand"?
You can hold mods in whatever regard you like; it won't change that she called you out because you were being an asshole to Mensur unnecessarily and you responded with more snark.
Then, when you got called on it again by another poster (me, less diplomatically than Suzie), you tried to call her out about responding to it.
That has never worked in the poster's favor in the past. Suzie and the gang here aren't stupid, and they can see right through that shit.
Ok serious question.
Would the reply you sent me be left on this site if say I wrote it? I'm being serious nothing against you or others who seem to have some pull around here but it does seem there is a double standard.
If I had posted like an asshole for no real reason, and you called me on it? Likely not. Or likely, as my post might be, it would simply be edited and/or given a warning (I've had multiple warnings in my time here).
The mods here aren't robots, and they have generally considered context when assessing posts, even if they disagree with the post's wording.
Fair enough...
Fyi my post that started this wasn't as bad as you guys have made it out to be. I'm still looking for the "story" btw like I said it would be an interesting twist here if that story ended up being a lie.
How many apologies would I get:)
I think it was a matter if Mensur simply sharing something he heard/read and your post immediately implying ulterior motives.
I feel like you could've called that into question without making the assumption he was trying to be sneaky. Maybe he misremembered, or maybe it was word-of-mouth that got exaggerated.
There are a lot of perfectly innocent reasons for not finding his story. Tell him you can't find any news of it, and I don't think Suzie or many others would think that was rude or insulting. Assigning a judgement on his motives immediately when he seemingly never even followed the story with an opinion on the issue at hand is what made your post seem unnecessarily rude and aggressive.
Understood...I'm going to respect the mod and stick to the subject at hand though and leave this conversation for another time.
On topic:
I'm curious to your response about loot boxes being debatable. I replied with some links. Ignore my snarky comment at the end
The general consensus (one I can see merit in legally, though I feel like it ignores the actual issue with lootboxes in virtual goods) is that because you're guaranteed to win something and there isn't a true dollar value of the goods won, it's not gambling because the "risk" is always losing all your money for something of subjective value.
But none of that addresses the mechanisms that push consumers to the lootboxes. We do have evidence that companies are already exploring behind-the-scenes code to push you to purchasing these things without you even realizing it. Code that significantly alters your gameplay experience to achieve that push (check out Activision's exploratory patent for matchmaking). If companies perceive an okay from the government for that kind of code, I doubt Activision will allow the patent they filed for to languish out of goodwill. I haven't seen a lot of evidence that these companies will forego potential profits for goodwill like that.
My little cousin stole his dads credit card and racked up charges on a mobile game, so even with protections in place the most vulnerable are still targeted man.
If my kid did something like that, I would kick his ass (metaphorically) until no longer he can't sit straight on the chair. That's still parent responsibility how your kids behave.
How is it their fault a dad didnt have restrictions? That's like saying it's the beer companies fault the guy drove drunk and killed someone.
I dont understand how personal responsibility has completely gone away
Not saying its their fault. I just shared the story!
We should bake them a cake!
mods in whatever regard you like; it won't change that she called you out because you were being an asshole to Mensur unnecessarily and you responded with more snark.
Then, when you got called on it again by another poster (me, less diplomatically than Suzie), you tried to call her out about responding to it.
That has never worked in the poster's favor in the past. Suzie and the gang here aren't stupid, and they can see right through that shit.
Ok serious question.
Would the reply you sent me be left on this site if say I wrote it? I'm being serious nothing against you or others who seem to have some pull around here but it does seem there is a double standard.
If I had posted like an asshole for no real reason, and you called me on it? Likely not. Or likely, as my post might be, it would simply be edited and/or given a warning (I've had multiple warnings in my time here).
The mods here aren't robots, and they have generally considered context when assessing posts, even if they disagree with the post's wording.
Fair enough...
Fyi my post that started this wasn't as bad as you guys have made it out to be. I'm still looking for the "story" btw like I said it would be an interesting twist here if that story ended up being a lie.
How many apologies would I get:)
I think it was a matter if Mensur simply sharing something he heard/read and your post immediately implying ulterior motives.
I feel like you could've called that into question without making the assumption he was trying to be sneaky. Maybe he misremembered, or maybe it was word-of-mouth that got exaggerated.
There are a lot of perfectly innocent reasons for not finding his story. Tell him you can't find any news of it, and I don't think Suzie or many others would think that was rude or insulting. Assigning a judgement on his motives immediately when he seemingly never even followed the story with an opinion on the issue at hand is what made your post seem unnecessarily rude and aggressive.
Understood...I'm going to respect the mod and stick to the subject at hand though and leave this conversation for another time.
On topic:
I'm curious to your response about loot boxes being debatable. I replied with some links. Ignore my snarky comment at the end
The general consensus (one I can see merit in legally, though I feel like it ignores the actual issue with lootboxes in virtual goods) is that because you're guaranteed to win something and there isn't a true dollar value of the goods won, it's not gambling because the "risk" is always losing all your money for something of subjective value.
But none of that addresses the mechanisms that push consumers to the lootboxes. We do have evidence that companies are already exploring behind-the-scenes code to push you to purchasing these things without you even realizing it. Code that significantly alters your gameplay experience to achieve that push (check out Activision's exploratory patent for matchmaking). If companies perceive an okay from the government for that kind of code, I doubt Activision will allow the patent they filed for to languish out of goodwill. I haven't seen a lot of evidence that these companies will forego potential profits for goodwill like that.
Ok fair but TV commercials have been doing this for decades. The commercial we see on TV are not just thrown together every aspect is created to increase the chance the consumer will buy their product. Everytime you walk into a grocery story items are strategically placed to push the consumer to buy their products.
If every aspect of our lives does this why are "we" as gamers calling out our own hobby? Why are "we" as gamers asking for our hobby to be regulated? What benefits can the government bring to gaming?
In Denmark where I am from- We had an issue where a son using his dads card on app store- bought a pair of pants for this avatar, in a game called subway surfer -or I think it was that game. He paid 10.000 DKK which is equivalent to 1.512,88 USD. When the publisher was confronted by the news media he said- its not our fault that the dad didnt have restrictions in app store- and never gave a refund lol.
How is it their fault a dad didnt have restrictions? That's like saying it's the beer companies fault the guy drove drunk and killed someone.
I dont understand how personal responsibility has completely gone away.
Not saying its their fault. I just shared the story!
We should bake them a cake!
We shouldnt post a stupid story that makes it sound like they are the bad guy in that story either.
That response is over the top. People are allowed to have a difference of opinion and having a different opinion on a subject doesn't grant you the right to be insulting.
That depends entirely on the opinion in question. In this case, there was no justification for insults.
How is it their fault a dad didnt have restrictions? That's like saying it's the beer companies fault the guy drove drunk and killed someone.
I dont understand how personal responsibility has completely gone away
Not saying its their fault. I just shared the story!
We should bake them a cake!
mods in whatever regard you like; it won't change that she called you out because you were being an asshole to Mensur unnecessarily and you responded with more snark.
Then, when you got called on it again by another poster (me, less diplomatically than Suzie), you tried to call her out about responding to it.
That has never worked in the poster's favor in the past. Suzie and the gang here aren't stupid, and they can see right through that shit.
Ok serious question.
Would the reply you sent me be left on this site if say I wrote it? I'm being serious nothing against you or others who seem to have some pull around here but it does seem there is a double standard.
If I had posted like an asshole for no real reason, and you called me on it? Likely not. Or likely, as my post might be, it would simply be edited and/or given a warning (I've had multiple warnings in my time here).
The mods here aren't robots, and they have generally considered context when assessing posts, even if they disagree with the post's wording.
Fair enough...
Fyi my post that started this wasn't as bad as you guys have made it out to be. I'm still looking for the "story" btw like I said it would be an interesting twist here if that story ended up being a lie.
How many apologies would I get:)
I think it was a matter if Mensur simply sharing something he heard/read and your post immediately implying ulterior motives.
I feel like you could've called that into question without making the assumption he was trying to be sneaky. Maybe he misremembered, or maybe it was word-of-mouth that got exaggerated.
There are a lot of perfectly innocent reasons for not finding his story. Tell him you can't find any news of it, and I don't think Suzie or many others would think that was rude or insulting. Assigning a judgement on his motives immediately when he seemingly never even followed the story with an opinion on the issue at hand is what made your post seem unnecessarily rude and aggressive.
Understood...I'm going to respect the mod and stick to the subject at hand though and leave this conversation for another time.
On topic:
I'm curious to your response about loot boxes being debatable. I replied with some links. Ignore my snarky comment at the end
The general consensus (one I can see merit in legally, though I feel like it ignores the actual issue with lootboxes in virtual goods) is that because you're guaranteed to win something and there isn't a true dollar value of the goods won, it's not gambling because the "risk" is always losing all your money for something of subjective value.
But none of that addresses the mechanisms that push consumers to the lootboxes. We do have evidence that companies are already exploring behind-the-scenes code to push you to purchasing these things without you even realizing it. Code that significantly alters your gameplay experience to achieve that push (check out Activision's exploratory patent for matchmaking). If companies perceive an okay from the government for that kind of code, I doubt Activision will allow the patent they filed for to languish out of goodwill. I haven't seen a lot of evidence that these companies will forego potential profits for goodwill like that.
Ok fair but TV commercials have been doing this for decades. The commercial we see on TV are not just thrown together every aspect is created to increase the chance the consumer will buy their product. Everytime you walk into a grocery story items are strategically placed to push the consumer to buy their products.
If every aspect of our lives does this why are "we" as gamers calling out our own hobby? Why are "we" as gamers asking for our hobby to be regulated? What benefits can the government bring to gaming?
TV isn't an interactive hobby. If advertisers were buying their way into your shows, forcing writers to write material that tried to convince you to buy their products... That would still likely garner backlash from consumers.
But game developers can go further. You can't make the same show less enjoyable for select viewers simply to push them to buy. The show is the show. They don't alter the plot or actors based on your expenditure.
Activision's patent would literally match you against folks with purchased weapons to show you how awesome and powerful those weapons are and highlight that you don't have one. It literally works to define your online experience in the game by how much you spend. That's another level of manipulation, one much worse than merely exaggerated lines about how good something tastes or works.
As for the government benefits... The dangers of government, imo, have been largely overblown. Regulations are merely an implementation of the social contract, which is the foundational cornerstone of any and all government.
I tend to agree with them. If for whatever reason those complaining about loot boxes get their way and get them removed (luckily wont happen) they will be opening a pandora box of sorts. Video games have been the same price for at least a decade, now if those complaining get their way I can GUARANTEE they will cry when the price of video games go through the roof. Or when developers remove loot boxes and put every single item that was in the loot box on their store at crazy high prices.
I personally never buy loot boxes. I dont mind buying cosmetics or even a little crafting or xp boost but never a loot box I just would rather buy an item directly. No game i play put items on loot boxes that would make them "gambling" or a must have.
This comes down to a few simple points.
1) Take some personal responsibility and if you have a kid try parenting.
2) I dont need the government to regulate the video games I play. More government regulation is NEVER a good thing.
3) Worry about yourself and not what other people spend their money on.
And companies have zero responsibilities? They fucking target kids.
You know back in the old days they use to tar and feather shysters or even worse.
Out of morbid curiosity, does Andrew Wilson taste like Satan's left testicle, or does he just act like it?
Please don't insult Satan. He never half-assed anything in his entire career.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
I tend to agree with them. If for whatever reason those complaining about loot boxes get their way and get them removed (luckily wont happen) they will be opening a pandora box of sorts. Video games have been the same price for at least a decade, now if those complaining get their way I can GUARANTEE they will cry when the price of video games go through the roof. Or when developers remove loot boxes and put every single item that was in the loot box on their store at crazy high prices.
I personally never buy loot boxes. I dont mind buying cosmetics or even a little crafting or xp boost but never a loot box I just would rather buy an item directly. No game i play put items on loot boxes that would make them "gambling" or a must have.
This comes down to a few simple points.
1) Take some personal responsibility and if you have a kid try parenting.
2) I dont need the government to regulate the video games I play. More government regulation is NEVER a good thing.
3) Worry about yourself and not what other people spend their money on.
And companies have zero responsibilities? They fucking target kids.
You know back in the old days they use to tar and feather shysters or even worse.
We were asked to not use profanity but since you did I'll reply in kind.
Gambling is allowed where I live - so if lootboxes are gambling - it's already ok
I doubt gambling is allowed for minors where you live.
This is about regulation not prohibition. No one wants the government to dictate what an adult can or cannot do with his/her money.
Regulation don't always change things, obviously (rules are made to be broken after all). Minors cannot legally smoke, drink or watch porn. Yet some of them smoke, drink, and sure as hell many watch porn. And if there are parents who say their kid would never do something like that, but they don't care to put a parental control on their modem (which now every ISP provides), they are naive and irresponsible. Just like the parents who trust their kid with their credit card.
Regulations put the responsibilities back in the parents hands, so they can't blame others for their parenting failure. But as an adult I am free to gamble all my wages at the slot machines if I wish so, as long as I know the risks involved.
I tend to agree with them. If for whatever reason those complaining about loot boxes get their way and get them removed (luckily wont happen) they will be opening a pandora box of sorts. Video games have been the same price for at least a decade, now if those complaining get their way I can GUARANTEE they will cry when the price of video games go through the roof. Or when developers remove loot boxes and put every single item that was in the loot box on their store at crazy high prices.
I personally never buy loot boxes. I dont mind buying cosmetics or even a little crafting or xp boost but never a loot box I just would rather buy an item directly. No game i play put items on loot boxes that would make them "gambling" or a must have.
This comes down to a few simple points.
1) Take some personal responsibility and if you have a kid try parenting.
2) I dont need the government to regulate the video games I play. More government regulation is NEVER a good thing.
3) Worry about yourself and not what other people spend their money on.
And companies have zero responsibilities? They fucking target kids.
You know back in the old days they use to tar and feather shysters or even worse.
We were asked to not use profanity but since you did I'll reply in kind.
Maybe parents should fucking parent.
You can use profanity n' shit ( ) from my experience here. It's more the intent of the usage than the usage by itself that I've seen get moderated.
Of course, everything has limits. I wouldn't start dropping a bunch of anatomical slang words around for the sake of it or anything.
How is it their fault a dad didnt have restrictions? That's like saying it's the beer companies fault the guy drove drunk and killed someone.
I dont understand how personal responsibility has completely gone away
Not saying its their fault. I just shared the story!
We should bake them a cake!
mods in whatever regard you like; it won't change that she called you out because you were being an asshole to Mensur unnecessarily and you responded with more snark.
Then, when you got called on it again by another poster (me, less diplomatically than Suzie), you tried to call her out about responding to it.
That has never worked in the poster's favor in the past. Suzie and the gang here aren't stupid, and they can see right through that shit.
Ok serious question.
Would the reply you sent me be left on this site if say I wrote it? I'm being serious nothing against you or others who seem to have some pull around here but it does seem there is a double standard.
If I had posted like an asshole for no real reason, and you called me on it? Likely not. Or likely, as my post might be, it would simply be edited and/or given a warning (I've had multiple warnings in my time here).
The mods here aren't robots, and they have generally considered context when assessing posts, even if they disagree with the post's wording.
Fair enough...
Fyi my post that started this wasn't as bad as you guys have made it out to be. I'm still looking for the "story" btw like I said it would be an interesting twist here if that story ended up being a lie.
How many apologies would I get:)
Ok fair but TV commercials have been doing this for decades. The commercial we see on TV are not just thrown together every aspect is created to increase the chance the consumer will buy their product. Everytime you walk into a grocery story items are strategically placed to push the consumer to buy their products.
If every aspect of our lives does this why are "we" as gamers calling out our own hobby? Why are "we" as gamers asking for our hobby to be regulated? What benefits can the government bring to gaming?
TV isn't an interactive hobby. If advertisers were buying their way into your shows, forcing writers to write material that tried to convince you to buy their products... That would still likely garner backlash from consumers.
But game developers can go further. You can't make the same show less enjoyable for select viewers simply to push them to buy. The show is the show. They don't alter the plot or actors based on your expenditure.
Activision's patent would literally match you against folks with purchased weapons to show you how awesome and powerful those weapons are and highlight that you don't have one. It literally works to define your online experience in the game by how much you spend. That's another level of manipulation, one much worse than merely exaggerated lines about how good something tastes or works.
As for the government benefits... The dangers of government, imo, have been largely overblown. Regulations are merely an implementation of the social contract, which is the foundational cornerstone of any and all government.
TV isnt an interactive hobby? You ever been at a bar or house party when an important sporting event is on? There is far more interaction and emotion going on in that room than any video game could ever generate. Advertisers know this and manipulate their commercials as such.
I dont see Activision patent any different then Google search algorithm. Again these behaviors are all around us, why are we as gamers going after our own hobby when in the end it wont makr our hobby better?
How is it their fault a dad didnt have restrictions? That's like saying it's the beer companies fault the guy drove drunk and killed someone.
I dont understand how personal responsibility has completely gone away
Not saying its their fault. I just shared the story!
We should bake them a cake!
mods in whatever regard you like; it won't change that she called you out because you were being an asshole to Mensur unnecessarily and you responded with more snark.
Then, when you got called on it again by another poster (me, less diplomatically than Suzie), you tried to call her out about responding to it.
That has never worked in the poster's favor in the past. Suzie and the gang here aren't stupid, and they can see right through that shit.
Ok serious question.
Would the reply you sent me be left on this site if say I wrote it? I'm being serious nothing against you or others who seem to have some pull around here but it does seem there is a double standard.
If I had posted like an asshole for no real reason, and you called me on it? Likely not. Or likely, as my post might be, it would simply be edited and/or given a warning (I've had multiple warnings in my time here).
The mods here aren't robots, and they have generally considered context when assessing posts, even if they disagree with the post's wording.
Fair enough...
Fyi my post that started this wasn't as bad as you guys have made it out to be. I'm still looking for the "story" btw like I said it would be an interesting twist here if that story ended up being a lie.
How many apologies would I get:)
Ok fair but TV commercials have been doing this for decades. The commercial we see on TV are not just thrown together every aspect is created to increase the chance the consumer will buy their product. Everytime you walk into a grocery story items are strategically placed to push the consumer to buy their products.
If every aspect of our lives does this why are "we" as gamers calling out our own hobby? Why are "we" as gamers asking for our hobby to be regulated? What benefits can the government bring to gaming?
TV isn't an interactive hobby. If advertisers were buying their way into your shows, forcing writers to write material that tried to convince you to buy their products... That would still likely garner backlash from consumers.
But game developers can go further. You can't make the same show less enjoyable for select viewers simply to push them to buy. The show is the show. They don't alter the plot or actors based on your expenditure.
Activision's patent would literally match you against folks with purchased weapons to show you how awesome and powerful those weapons are and highlight that you don't have one. It literally works to define your online experience in the game by how much you spend. That's another level of manipulation, one much worse than merely exaggerated lines about how good something tastes or works.
As for the government benefits... The dangers of government, imo, have been largely overblown. Regulations are merely an implementation of the social contract, which is the foundational cornerstone of any and all government.
TV isnt an interactive hobby? You ever been at a bar or house party when an important sporting event is on? There is far more interaction and emotion going on in that room than any video game could ever generate. Advertisers know this and manipulate their commercials as such.
I dont see Activision patent any different then Google search algorithm. Again these behaviors are all around us, why are we as gamers going after our own hobby when in the end it wont makr our hobby better?
That still isn't interactive. You're interacting with people; you have no input or influence on what the station presents. You have no input or influence on what commercials are aired or when. You have no input or influence on who the shows/events choose to sponsor them, but shows have a vested interest in attracting advertising that is palatable to their target demographic. It's a much different situation.
To be analogous, TV would have to literally degrade your viewing experience if you refused to make microtransactions during the event. I.e., during a football game, they would take away camera angles or commentary if you didn't purchase a bag of Doritos and a Pepsi product at the beginning of the game. Then, to mimic the matching of players Activision's patent prescribes, the event would give you bits and pieces of those extra camera angles and commentary to show you what you're missing because you won't pony up again.
Would you describe the above scenario as an improvement over receiving all the angles and commentary for a set price, or a a degradation?
I'm not surprised this is happening. I'm surprised this is happening now compared to later. I didn't expect in this era of USA for this to get the attention, imo, it deserves so kudos to the FTC. I think there is "gambling" that has been allowed in mmo-ish games & the techniques implemented for such have been predatory since there's no accountability nor transparency. How is it not "gambling" when no official odds are published? However, currently this will be just an investigation not a ruling one way or another.
Don't think the point of this is if loot boxes should be removed. Isn't the whole point of this basically about answering the question of "are loot boxes gambling"? Honestly, I think they are, and should be subject to the same regulations. I've heard many arguments over it, but have yet to see one that argued that they aren't, at least not with any real sense behind it.
In War - Victory. In Peace - Vigilance. In Death - Sacrifice.
Anyway, on topic.... It's good the issue is being investigated. Unfortunately I think they miss the bigger picture of predatory monetization by only looking at loot crates or "variable reward containers".
Instead of gambling regulation implemented, I'd like to see full disclosure of all drop rates and tables in a game where any amount of randomness, chance, or any other type of RNG blind acquisition happens (i.e.: you don't know what you're going to get).
I would second this and add giving a cautionary eye towards producers making behind the scenes changes that influence purchasing decisions while intentionally hiding it from gamers.
That's a proactive step I'd like to see them take here. If lootboxes are to stay, I'd like to be sure Activision can't degrade/alter my experiences based on my purchases without informing me up front.
Anyway, on topic.... It's good the issue is being investigated. Unfortunately I think they miss the bigger picture of predatory monetization by only looking at loot crates or "variable reward containers".
Instead of gambling regulation implemented, I'd like to see full disclosure of all drop rates and tables in a game where any amount of randomness, chance, or any other type of RNG blind acquisition happens (i.e.: you don't know what you're going to get).
This is how I picture you.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Comments
Your post was very much in the same tone, the only difference is how you come by in attempt to justify it.
In either case, you are trying to justify unjustifiable - just because you do not like something does not give you right to deny it to people who do not share your opinion.
On topic:
I'm curious to your response about loot boxes being debatable. I replied with some links. Ignore my snarky comment at the end
Another day on MMORPG Forums
Aloha Mr Hand !
But none of that addresses the mechanisms that push consumers to the lootboxes. We do have evidence that companies are already exploring behind-the-scenes code to push you to purchasing these things without you even realizing it. Code that significantly alters your gameplay experience to achieve that push (check out Activision's exploratory patent for matchmaking). If companies perceive an okay from the government for that kind of code, I doubt Activision will allow the patent they filed for to languish out of goodwill. I haven't seen a lot of evidence that these companies will forego potential profits for goodwill like that.
That's still parent responsibility how your kids behave.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
If every aspect of our lives does this why are "we" as gamers calling out our own hobby? Why are "we" as gamers asking for our hobby to be regulated? What benefits can the government bring to gaming?
But game developers can go further. You can't make the same show less enjoyable for select viewers simply to push them to buy. The show is the show. They don't alter the plot or actors based on your expenditure.
Activision's patent would literally match you against folks with purchased weapons to show you how awesome and powerful those weapons are and highlight that you don't have one. It literally works to define your online experience in the game by how much you spend. That's another level of manipulation, one much worse than merely exaggerated lines about how good something tastes or works.
As for the government benefits... The dangers of government, imo, have been largely overblown. Regulations are merely an implementation of the social contract, which is the foundational cornerstone of any and all government.
You know back in the old days they use to tar and feather shysters or even worse.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Maybe parents should fucking parent.
This is about regulation not prohibition.
No one wants the government to dictate what an adult can or cannot do with his/her money.
Regulation don't always change things, obviously (rules are made to be broken after all).
Minors cannot legally smoke, drink or watch porn.
Yet some of them smoke, drink, and sure as hell many watch porn.
And if there are parents who say their kid would never do something like that, but they don't care to put a parental control on their modem (which now every ISP provides), they are naive and irresponsible.
Just like the parents who trust their kid with their credit card.
Regulations put the responsibilities back in the parents hands, so they can't blame others for their parenting failure.
But as an adult I am free to gamble all my wages at the slot machines if I wish so, as long as I know the risks involved.
Of course, everything has limits. I wouldn't start dropping a bunch of anatomical slang words around for the sake of it or anything.
I dont see Activision patent any different then Google search algorithm. Again these behaviors are all around us, why are we as gamers going after our own hobby when in the end it wont makr our hobby better?
To be analogous, TV would have to literally degrade your viewing experience if you refused to make microtransactions during the event. I.e., during a football game, they would take away camera angles or commentary if you didn't purchase a bag of Doritos and a Pepsi product at the beginning of the game. Then, to mimic the matching of players Activision's patent prescribes, the event would give you bits and pieces of those extra camera angles and commentary to show you what you're missing because you won't pony up again.
Would you describe the above scenario as an improvement over receiving all the angles and commentary for a set price, or a a degradation?
They won't find anything in them. They'll just keep have to buying more and more like the rest of us.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
In War - Victory.
In Peace - Vigilance.
In Death - Sacrifice.
That's a proactive step I'd like to see them take here. If lootboxes are to stay, I'd like to be sure Activision can't degrade/alter my experiences based on my purchases without informing me up front.
This is how I picture you.