That’s a really naive perspective and is the equivalent of saying stores don’t have to check IDs for alcohol because parents should know where every dollar is spent at all times. It’s even worse because these are hidden beneath multiple levels of transactions. In this case a 16 year old uses the $20 Grandma gave him to buy a Steam card at GameStop. He then uses the Steam card to buy crowns in eso. He then uses the crowns to buy lootboxes.
Its ridiculous. Kids are more technically astute than their parents in most cases.Lets be honest. The average 16 year old knows far more about this stuff than their parents.
Indeed two wrong do not make a right, if for some reason a parent fails it doesn't give the rest of us (looking at companies here) a free pass to do w/e and not be responsible for their action or lack thereof.
<snip>
It must be nice to live in a world where companies have ethics.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
It must be nice to live in a world where companies have ethics.
They don't which is why we have a need for regulations on some things that they must follow......and game companies have clearly demonstrated a blatant disregard in that area.
Welcome to the modern age!
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
How does a parent stop a 16 year old from walking into GameStop and buying a “game card” that they use on lootboxes? What about the 12 year old that asks Granny for an EA Card for his birthday? Are these cards currently age restricted? Nope.
I just looked and you can spend your EA “Origin” card on things like FIFA points that you use to buy gamepacks(lootboxes).
Heck... how about just a Steam card? Get a $50 Steam card and use it to buy ESO Crowns...
I may sound naive or optimistic, but if you control your child's allowance this could potentially be an educative experience.
Disclaimer: I have no kids so I am not sure how much my opinion counts on the subject, but I have been one and remember how my parents were controlling these things. They would let us blow our allowance on stupid things (as long as they were not cigarettes or drugs obviously), and if we were disappointed with them, well "tough luck, learn to control your allowance better and wiser next time".
It's learning experience to some extend, but it's not a very good learning experience because:
1. After losing even adults tend to think "I'll be more lucky next time", or even "I'll recoup my losses next time". The child is less likely to learn from bad purchase if he thinks that it's due to bad luck not a bad decision on his part, and that next identical purchase will give him different results
2. It's easy enough to evaluate whether each individual lootbox was a good buy or a bad buy, but as you purchase more of them and get both good and bad mixed together it gets harder and harder to tell whether buying lootboxes overall was a good idea or a bad idea. You get a lot of somewhat useful items that you didn't really want to buy but ended up getting anyway while looking for the item you want, and you value all those items somewhat, but mostly not quite up to their purchase price, expect some items that you consider good and value them above the purchase price, and it all becomes so complex that in the end the child has too hard time evaluating whether the items were worth it or not. If the child can't make that evaluation, he also won't learn.
For someone who's practicing spending money and should learn, it's much better if he can be in a situation where everything has a set price, he gets to choose individual items that he buys, and later on has much better info to evaluate whether that item for that price was a good purchase or not. Lootboxes can work if your aim is to get the child experience being out of money because he's blown it all to something, but imho they provide bad education compared to blowing it in a store.
Again peddling a strawman arguement and losing site of the forest for the sake of one tree.....lol Also your use of the term "random mechanics" lmao is telling.
Schill is obviously schilling.
Furthermore your theory that wanting lootboxes gone is exploiting children and people with mental vulnerabilities is laughable and yet another attempt to obfuscate the issues with logical fallacies....
The term randomized mechanic's should be telling. Given It's what this entire thread is about and the term is used Literally in the filed lawsuit. Rather amusing that you would call someone else obtuse when your the one to slow to understand the topic.
Just another point to proves your dishonesty. I again literally started the paragraph you quoted of by saying you have a right to push for mechanic's you don't like to be removed or better regulated. But you don't have the right to exploit children to do so.
It's a pretty basic concept to grasp Torval was able to get it with no problem. If you need a history lesson I can list quotes from Anslinger. Not something we should be proud of but should learn from.
Edit: I stand corrected for the sake of transparency some of the wording used in the lawsuit are as follows.
randomised loot system randomizes games of chance
So i guess you could call me disingenuous for saying the above is randomized mechanic's. Even when that is exactly what it is.
That’s a really naive perspective and is the equivalent of saying stores don’t have to check IDs for alcohol because parents should know where every dollar is spent at all times. It’s even worse because these are hidden beneath multiple levels of transactions. In this case a 16 year old uses the $20 Grandma gave him to buy a Steam card at GameStop. He then uses the Steam card to buy crowns in eso. He then uses the crowns to buy lootboxes.
Its ridiculous. Kids are more technically astute than their parents in most cases.Lets be honest. The average 16 year old knows far more about this stuff than their parents.
Indeed two wrong do not make a right, if for some reason a parent fails it doesn't give the rest of us (looking at companies here) a free pass to do w/e and not be responsible for their action or lack thereof.
The sole focus on the responsibility of the parent and ignoring all else it blatantly strawmaning at this point to peddle some false reasoning and lack of logic.
I am sure Kyleran knows better too, he's just needing to win an argument here at any cost.
Slap directly asked how could parents control what their children spend money on and I provided a very real reply based on personal experience.
An appeal to emotion, think of the children is one part TV troupe and one part logic falicy, so of course there's nothing to lose by going for the "win."
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
That is a pretty good unbias read. While he is specifically talking about lootboxs. A lot of those design mechanics are used in other kinds of cash shop microtransactions as well as general gameplay. Thanks for the link.
I think the hardest part of this, for me at least, is thinking "Well, if my kid blows all their money on loot boxes only to crap out, this will be a great life lesson to teach them about not gambling" all the while worried stupid they might win big.. and become gambling addicts, and you know you enabled that BS.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
The term randomized mechanic's should be telling. Given It's what this entire thread is about and the term is used Literally in the filed lawsuit. Rather amusing that you would call someone else obtuse when your the one to slow to understand the topic.Just another point to proves your dishonesty.
The thread is about lootboxes and why they should not be in games, nothing confusing about it. The term randomized mechanics aka "surprise mechanics" as the EA rep disingenuously called them in front of the UK parliament is something designed to hide what they really are. There's nothing dishonest about calling people out on this, I just dislike the BS that is routinely spouted in these forums and we are seeing lots of it in this thread, I mean real gdemami quality BS here too.
I again literally started the paragraph you quoted of by saying you have a right to push for mechanic's you don't like to be removed or better regulated. But you don't have the right to exploit children to do so.
It's a pretty basic concept to grasp Torval was able to get it with no problem. If you need a history lesson I can list quotes from Anslinger. Not something we should be proud of but should learn from.
I never said that "I personally" but rather we as a whole have a right to push to regulate certain things, again there is nothing about exploiting children in here, it's about protecting society as a whole.
What really is disgusting is how you act all righteous and use children yourself in some argument online and call it exploiting children when we say there should be an age limit to something or that some things need to fall under certain guidelines like gambling online be it through an online casino or a video games. You are correct that exploiting children and people with mental vulnerabilities is disgusting and people who do it should be ashamed.
I think you need to look long and hard in the mirror. Companies have long shown a willingness to exploit both children and adults, have shown a willingness to "game the system" for their bottom line if we let them do w/e with rampant impunity and it's truly disgusting when someone comes in, in defense of said companies, and has the unmitigated gall to claim people pushing to neuter their ability to exploit people are the ones exploiting children, it's a disgusting tactic that you should be ashamed of employing...and yes this is exactly what you are doing.
Edit: I stand corrected for the sake of transparency some of the wording used in the lawsuit are as follows.
randomised loot system randomizes games of chance
So i guess you could call me disingenuous for saying the above is randomized mechanic's. Even when that is exactly what it is.
Yes you are being disingenuous there is no getting around this for you. You are making it sound like the lawsuit is about general randomized mechanics like, like for example rare drops from a mob you kill in game. Randomized mechanics is not gambling per say and doesn't mean video games should all be shoved under the gambling umbrella because it has some elements like this in them.
No this is about loot boxes, something you use real life money to try and "win" or "chase" a wanted reward...this is gambling and is far different from randomized mechanics employed like the above example.
Just like EA's Kerry Hopkins you are using this term like how they used the term "surprise mechanics" to try and peddle the idea loot boxes are something other than gambling to get around gambling laws and so they can continue exploiting people in general for a profit and believe you me they make a huge profit with these garbage loot boxes.
Randomized mechanics and "randomised loot systems or randomized games of chance" are being used to describe two very different things here in the lawsuit with the intent to prove that the latter is in fact gambling and should be treated as such.
Slap directly asked how could parents control what their children spend money on and I provided a very real reply based on personal experience.
An appeal to emotion, think of the children is one part TV troupe and one part logic falicy, so of course there's nothing to lose by going for the "win."
Besides, losing is for suckers. ...snip...
Sure I was raised old school too. I do not believe in allowances unless kids earn it by doing chores and I also do not believe kids have a "right" to a cell phones or PC or video games in their rooms where we as parents are not as likely to see what they are up to etc etc all that old school goodness ad nauseam.
No I have no problem with you giving personal example's.
What I do however is the slant and bent attitude that you often have to try and be "clever" or "win" a discussion cause as you say, "Besides, losing is for suckers." sadly that is also a very old school thing, and you may fool some of the younger whippersnappers on these forums but you are not going to blow smoke up my arse old man especially when you use the whole "An appeal to emotion" you just mentioned to try and "win" a discussion.
You will just have to put up with my occasionally harrumphing and snorting at some of your comments.
Post edited by Asm0deus on
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
It must be nice to live in a world where companies have ethics.
They don't which is why we have a need for regulations on some things that they must follow......and game companies have clearly demonstrated a blatant disregard in that area.
Welcome to the modern age!
almost looks like goverments have any ethics, or even on some point had it. its pretty much one without ethics policing other without it too, and only because of spite, they don't want anyone stealing they.... I mean your money, since its supose to go for taxes, but i bet the moment they start to tax it specifically everything is fair game
The term randomized mechanic's should be telling. Given It's what this entire thread is about and the term is used Literally in the filed lawsuit. Rather amusing that you would call someone else obtuse when your the one to slow to understand the topic.Just another point to proves your dishonesty.
The thread is about lootboxes and why they should not be in games, nothing confusing about it. The term randomized mechanics aka "surprise mechanics" as the EA rep disingenuously called them in front of the UK parliament is something designed to hide what they really are. There's nothing dishonest about calling people out on this, I just dislike the BS that is routinely spouted in these forums and we are seeing lots of it in this thread, I mean real gdemami quality BS here too.
I again literally started the paragraph you quoted of by saying you have a right to push for mechanic's you don't like to be removed or better regulated. But you don't have the right to exploit children to do so.
It's a pretty basic concept to grasp Torval was able to get it with no problem. If you need a history lesson I can list quotes from Anslinger. Not something we should be proud of but should learn from.
I never said that "I personally" but rather we as a whole have a right to push to regulate certain things, again there is nothing about exploiting children in here, it's about protecting society as a whole.
What really is disgusting is how you act all righteous and use children yourself in some argument online and call it exploiting children when we say there should be an age limit to something or that some things need to fall under certain guidelines like gambling online be it through an online casino or a video games. You are correct that exploiting children and people with mental vulnerabilities is disgusting and people who do it should be ashamed.
I think you need to look long and hard in the mirror. Companies have long shown a willingness to exploit both children and adults, have shown a willingness to "game the system" for their bottom line if we let them do w/e with rampant impunity and it's truly disgusting when someone comes in, in defense of said companies, and has the unmitigated gall to claim people pushing to neuter their ability to exploit people are the ones exploiting children, it's a disgusting tactic that you should be ashamed of employing...and yes this is exactly what you are doing.
Edit: I stand corrected for the sake of transparency some of the wording used in the lawsuit are as follows.
randomised loot system randomizes games of chance
So i guess you could call me disingenuous for saying the above is randomized mechanic's. Even when that is exactly what it is.
Yes you are being disingenuous there is no getting around this for you. You are making it sound like the lawsuit is about general randomized mechanics like, like for example rare drops from a mob you kill in game. Randomized mechanics is not gambling per say and doesn't mean video games should all be shoved under the gambling umbrella because it has some elements like this in them.
No this is about loot boxes, something you use real life money to try and "win" or "chase" a wanted reward...this is gambling and is far different from randomized mechanics employed like the above example.
Just like EA's Kerry Hopkins you are using this term like how they used the term "surprise mechanics" to try and peddle the idea loot boxes are something other than gambling to get around gambling laws and so they can continue exploiting people in general for a profit and believe you me they make a huge profit with these garbage loot boxes.
Randomized mechanics and "randomised loot systems or randomized games of chance" are being used to describe two very different things here in the lawsuit with the intent to prove that the latter is in fact gambling and should be treated as such.
Slap directly asked how could parents control what their children spend money on and I provided a very real reply based on personal experience.
An appeal to emotion, think of the children is one part TV troupe and one part logic falicy, so of course there's nothing to lose by going for the "win."
Besides, losing is for suckers. ...snip...
Sure I was raised old school too. I do not believe in allowances unless kids earn it by doing chores and I also do not believe kids have a "right" to a cell phones or PC or video games in their rooms where we as parents are not as likely to see what they are up to etc etc all that old school goodness ad nauseam.
No I have no problem with you giving personal example's.
What I do however is the slant and bent attitude that you often have to try and be "clever" or "win" a discussion cause as you say, "Besides, losing is for suckers." sadly that is also a very old school thing, and you may fool some of the younger whippersnappers on these forums but you are not going to blow smoke up my arse old man especially when you use the whole "An appeal to emotion" you just mentioned to try and "win" a discussion.
You will just have to put up with my occasionally harrumphing and snorting at some of your comments.
Truth be told, I find it pretty easy to try and be clever (results vary) and understand there's no real winning of an argument on an internet forum.
All part of forum PVP and done mostly for entertainment purposes.
If you go back a bit you might find me arguing the other side of debate, I really don't care all that much either way.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
1. After losing even adults tend to think "I'll be more lucky next time", or even "I'll recoup my losses next time". The child is less likely to learn from bad purchase if he thinks that it's due to bad luck not a bad decision on his part, and that next identical purchase will give him different results
2. It's easy enough to evaluate whether each individual lootbox was a good buy or a bad buy, but as you purchase more of them and get both good and bad mixed together it gets harder and harder to tell whether buying lootboxes overall was a good idea or a bad idea.
You get a lot of somewhat useful items that you didn't really want to buy but ended up getting anyway while looking for the item you want, and you value all those items somewhat, but mostly not quite up to their purchase price, expect some items that you consider good and value them above the purchase price, and it all becomes so complex that in the end the child has too hard time evaluating whether the items were worth it or not. If the child can't make that evaluation, he also won't learn.
For someone who's practicing spending money and should learn, it's much better if he can be in a situation where everything has a set price, he gets to choose individual items that he buys, and later on has much better info to evaluate whether that item for that price was a good purchase or not.
Lootboxes can work if your aim is to get the child experience being out of money because he's blown it all to something, but imho they provide bad education compared to blowing it in a store.
https://medium.com/behavior-design/hooked-on-loot-boxes-how-design-gets-us-addicted-79c45faebc05
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Just another point to proves your dishonesty. I again literally started the paragraph you quoted of by saying you have a right to push for mechanic's you don't like to be removed or better regulated. But you don't have the right to exploit children to do so.
It's a pretty basic concept to grasp Torval was able to get it with no problem. If you need a history lesson I can list quotes from Anslinger. Not something we should be proud of but should learn from.
Edit: I stand corrected for the sake of transparency some of the wording used in the lawsuit are as follows.
randomised loot system
randomizes games of chance
So i guess you could call me disingenuous for saying the above is randomized mechanic's. Even when that is exactly what it is.
An appeal to emotion, think of the children is one part TV troupe and one part logic falicy, so of course there's nothing to lose by going for the "win."
Besides, losing is for suckers.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The thread is about lootboxes and why they should not be in games, nothing confusing about it. The term randomized mechanics aka "surprise mechanics" as the EA rep disingenuously called them in front of the UK parliament is something designed to hide what they really are. There's nothing dishonest about calling people out on this, I just dislike the BS that is routinely spouted in these forums and we are seeing lots of it in this thread, I mean real gdemami quality BS here too.
Sure I was raised old school too. I do not believe in allowances unless kids earn it by doing chores and I also do not believe kids have a "right" to a cell phones or PC or video games in their rooms where we as parents are not as likely to see what they are up to etc etc all that old school goodness ad nauseam.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
almost looks like goverments have any ethics, or even on some point had it. its pretty much one without ethics policing other without it too, and only because of spite, they don't want anyone stealing they.... I mean your money, since its supose to go for taxes, but i bet the moment they start to tax it specifically everything is fair game
All part of forum PVP and done mostly for entertainment purposes.
If you go back a bit you might find me arguing the other side of debate, I really don't care all that much either way.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon