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. . .
So your argument is that no-one should think of the children?
There might be a lot of room to argue whether parents should think of the children, or all adults collectively should think of the children, but clearly someone must think of them and set them limits.
In my opinion here the one to set limits should be government, because limiting children shouldn't be too restrictive. A government can create situation where a parent is able to allow child the freedom to spend pocket money without supervision, and still have hard time trying to buy lootboxes, whereas if it's left completely up to the parents the parents would need to apply US style extreme restrictions and ban the child from using money.
Well that already in place isnt it ..
First most of these games by Govt ESRP have standards set up ..
Up to the parent to enforce it ..
And if you decide to let them you need to set it up so they cant spend , or monitor enough to be sure they dont..
My 7 year old loves Fortnite i let him play(if he asks) everynite , he Knows he Must ask to spend any of those V-bucks and would not dare do so without .. its called parenting ...
He also knows if hes doing well in school , finished his schoolwork and eating his meals , i most likely grin and say yes to wahtever silly Pink Bear outfit thing he wants to get .. If he has been good ..
No, parents can't set up it so that their kids can't spend on lootboxes.
It works well enough as long as you forbid him from spending any money, but past certain age you're in a situation where the kid can pick XBox gift card from nearest store and use it on Fortnite lootboxes (assuming he's playing on XBox).
A government enforced age limit would be better because it could limit those kids who are already old enough to go to local store and spend their own money.
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. . .
So your argument is that no-one should think of the children?
There might be a lot of room to argue whether parents should think of the children, or all adults collectively should think of the children, but clearly someone must think of them and set them limits.
In my opinion here the one to set limits should be government, because limiting children shouldn't be too restrictive. A government can create situation where a parent is able to allow child the freedom to spend pocket money without supervision, and still have hard time trying to buy lootboxes, whereas if it's left completely up to the parents the parents would need to apply US style extreme restrictions and ban the child from using money.
Well that already in place isnt it ..
First most of these games by Govt ESRP have standards set up ..
Up to the parent to enforce it ..
And if you decide to let them you need to set it up so they cant spend , or monitor enough to be sure they dont..
My 7 year old loves Fortnite i let him play(if he asks) everynite , he Knows he Must ask to spend any of those V-bucks and would not dare do so without .. its called parenting ...
He also knows if hes doing well in school , finished his schoolwork and eating his meals , i most likely grin and say yes to wahtever silly Pink Bear outfit thing he wants to get .. If he has been good ..
No, parents can't set up it so that their kids can't spend on lootboxes.
It works well enough as long as you forbid him from spending any money, but past certain age you're in a situation where the kid can pick XBox gift card from nearest store and use it on Fortnite lootboxes (assuming he's playing on XBox).
A government enforced age limit would be better because it could limit those kids who are already old enough to go to local store and spend their own money.
C'mon, don't burst his bubble. In the history of humanity kids have never, ever gotten away with doing things behind their parents back... it is known.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Technically, you can all but guarantee about a 50% win rate if you just play red/black at the roulette table all night.
Casinos don't make money and keep people there by making them lose 99% of the hands/rounds they play.
Agree, to make seem gambling at a casino is a complete loss is dishonest. As you said, no one would ever enter one if this was the case, people wouldn't make poker a living if they had a 99% of losing every time.
Also the "always something useful" is very subjective. The game would need to have crafting in the first place and it depends on what the person feels is useful.
That also creates the second problem with lootboxes. Those useful items have to come from somewhere and be appealing. so they're puled from the game and the games grind is increased stupidly for the lootboxes. Battlefront 2 was good example.
So it's loss loss for player when it comes to lootboxes
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. . .
So your argument is that no-one should think of the children?
There might be a lot of room to argue whether parents should think of the children, or all adults collectively should think of the children, but clearly someone must think of them and set them limits.
In my opinion here the one to set limits should be government, because limiting children shouldn't be too restrictive. A government can create situation where a parent is able to allow child the freedom to spend pocket money without supervision, and still have hard time trying to buy lootboxes, whereas if it's left completely up to the parents the parents would need to apply US style extreme restrictions and ban the child from using money.
Well that already in place isnt it ..
First most of these games by Govt ESRP have standards set up ..
Up to the parent to enforce it ..
And if you decide to let them you need to set it up so they cant spend , or monitor enough to be sure they dont..
My 7 year old loves Fortnite i let him play(if he asks) everynite , he Knows he Must ask to spend any of those V-bucks and would not dare do so without .. its called parenting ...
He also knows if hes doing well in school , finished his schoolwork and eating his meals , i most likely grin and say yes to wahtever silly Pink Bear outfit thing he wants to get .. If he has been good ..
No, parents can't set up it so that their kids can't spend on lootboxes.
It works well enough as long as you forbid him from spending any money, but past certain age you're in a situation where the kid can pick XBox gift card from nearest store and use it on Fortnite lootboxes (assuming he's playing on XBox).
A government enforced age limit would be better because it could limit those kids who are already old enough to go to local store and spend their own money.
Most games you can set it it up , so they cant Spend .. Unless of course you are handing your kid your CC info .. Which would be pretty stupid...
And you should also be aware of money your kid is spending regardless ...
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
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
But in real world gambling the chance of getting nothing is enormous.
Lootboxes always give you something of value - not the prized 1/1000 item that you are looking for but you get something useful - like crafting mats, etc...
So lootboxes are more of RNG buying - if lootboxes had 99% chance of giving you nothing - it would be more like gambling.
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
99% chance of getting nothing? Lol... maybe if all you play are slot machines.
Always get something decent? that's a matter of opinion. Personally I don't see a lot of value added in paying $5 for a couple XP potions.
Personally I call that, getting rooked.
Technically, you can all but guarantee about a 50% win rate if you just play red/black at the roulette table all night.
Casinos don't make money and keep people there by making them lose 99% of the hands/rounds they play.
I thought everthing give the casino an edge. I dont' play roulette. But I presume the casino have a 1% or 2% edge on red/black somehow if look in to the details more closely.
I browsed google there are actually a possible to roll green 0 and 00. So that is what give the casino an edge.
1 or 2% edge seems like nothing. But if you play 50 rounds and bet full amount every round, the loss is compoundly and on average you'll loss like 30% after that. I presume that is how card counter make so much money counting on black jack.
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
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
But in real world gambling the chance of getting nothing is enormous.
Lootboxes always give you something of value - not the prized 1/1000 item that you are looking for but you get something useful - like crafting mats, etc...
So lootboxes are more of RNG buying - if lootboxes had 99% chance of giving you nothing - it would be more like gambling.
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
99% chance of getting nothing? Lol... maybe if all you play are slot machines.
Always get something decent? that's a matter of opinion. Personally I don't see a lot of value added in paying $5 for a couple XP potions.
Personally I call that, getting rooked.
Technically, you can all but guarantee about a 50% win rate if you just play red/black at the roulette table all night.
Casinos don't make money and keep people there by making them lose 99% of the hands/rounds they play.
I thought everthing give the casino an edge. I dont' play roulette. But I presume the casino have a 1% or 2% edge on red/black somehow if look in to the details more closely.
I browsed google there are actually a possible to roll green 0 and 00. So that is what give the casino an edge.
Which places a red or black bet just under 50%- nowhere near the 1% to win odds quoted by Kano.
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. . .
So your argument is that no-one should think of the children?
There might be a lot of room to argue whether parents should think of the children, or all adults collectively should think of the children, but clearly someone must think of them and set them limits.
In my opinion here the one to set limits should be government, because limiting children shouldn't be too restrictive. A government can create situation where a parent is able to allow child the freedom to spend pocket money without supervision, and still have hard time trying to buy lootboxes, whereas if it's left completely up to the parents the parents would need to apply US style extreme restrictions and ban the child from using money.
Well that already in place isnt it ..
First most of these games by Govt ESRP have standards set up ..
Up to the parent to enforce it ..
And if you decide to let them you need to set it up so they cant spend , or monitor enough to be sure they dont..
My 7 year old loves Fortnite i let him play(if he asks) everynite , he Knows he Must ask to spend any of those V-bucks and would not dare do so without .. its called parenting ...
He also knows if hes doing well in school , finished his schoolwork and eating his meals , i most likely grin and say yes to wahtever silly Pink Bear outfit thing he wants to get .. If he has been good ..
No, parents can't set up it so that their kids can't spend on lootboxes.
It works well enough as long as you forbid him from spending any money, but past certain age you're in a situation where the kid can pick XBox gift card from nearest store and use it on Fortnite lootboxes (assuming he's playing on XBox).
A government enforced age limit would be better because it could limit those kids who are already old enough to go to local store and spend their own money.
sure if you belive a goverment law can't be ignored or bypassed by some legality.
goverment forbids anyone lower then 18(20-21 in some places) of buying alcohool, still some kids still drink alcohool regardless what the goverment says.
good parenting will never be and shouldn't be bypassed by any law, when teh goverment start to mess with how you deal and teach kids and family you know there is something wrong
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
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
But in real world gambling the chance of getting nothing is enormous.
Lootboxes always give you something of value - not the prized 1/1000 item that you are looking for but you get something useful - like crafting mats, etc...
So lootboxes are more of RNG buying - if lootboxes had 99% chance of giving you nothing - it would be more like gambling.
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
99% chance of getting nothing? Lol... maybe if all you play are slot machines.
Always get something decent? that's a matter of opinion. Personally I don't see a lot of value added in paying $5 for a couple XP potions.
Personally I call that, getting rooked.
Technically, you can all but guarantee about a 50% win rate if you just play red/black at the roulette table all night.
Casinos don't make money and keep people there by making them lose 99% of the hands/rounds they play.
I thought everthing give the casino an edge. I dont' play roulette. But I presume the casino have a 1% or 2% edge on red/black somehow if look in to the details more closely.
I browsed google there are actually a possible to roll green 0 and 00. So that is what give the casino an edge.
1 or 2% edge seems like nothing. But if you play 50 rounds and bet full amount every round, the loss is compoundly and on average you'll loss like 30% after that. I presume that is how card counter make so much money counting on black jack.
Casino's edge at Roulette is number 0 which is neither red or black. You're right the way you are calculating. When it comes down to the house or regulars they calculate very large volumes. Variance turns into a very different beast.
For instance a simple game of heads or tails; if you flip 10 times you might get heads every time. But if you flip 1 million times, you'll get much closer to %50.
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
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
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
But in real world gambling the chance of getting nothing is enormous.
Lootboxes always give you something of value - not the prized 1/1000 item that you are looking for but you get something useful - like crafting mats, etc...
So lootboxes are more of RNG buying - if lootboxes had 99% chance of giving you nothing - it would be more like gambling.
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
99% chance of getting nothing? Lol... maybe if all you play are slot machines.
Always get something decent? that's a matter of opinion. Personally I don't see a lot of value added in paying $5 for a couple XP potions.
Personally I call that, getting rooked.
Technically, you can all but guarantee about a 50% win rate if you just play red/black at the roulette table all night.
Casinos don't make money and keep people there by making them lose 99% of the hands/rounds they play.
I thought everthing give the casino an edge. I dont' play roulette. But I presume the casino have a 1% or 2% edge on red/black somehow if look in to the details more closely.
I browsed google there are actually a possible to roll green 0 and 00. So that is what give the casino an edge.
1 or 2% edge seems like nothing. But if you play 50 rounds and bet full amount every round, the loss is compoundly and on average you'll loss like 30% after that. I presume that is how card counter make so much money counting on black jack.
Casino's edge at Roulette is number 0 which is neither red or black. You're right the way you are calculating. When it comes down to the house or regulars they calculate very large volumes. Variance turns into a very different beast.
For instance a simple game of heads or tails; if you flip 10 times you might get heads every time. But if you flip 1 million times, you'll get much closer to %50.
Gambling schemes are most psychologically effective when the gambler feels like they're winning rounds regularly, even when their losses lose them more than their wins gain them.
And they literally jizz their pants whenever someone wins big and decides that they're on a "hot streak" and turns around to bet all those winnings on one or a few rounds.
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
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
But in real world gambling the chance of getting nothing is enormous.
Lootboxes always give you something of value - not the prized 1/1000 item that you are looking for but you get something useful - like crafting mats, etc...
So lootboxes are more of RNG buying - if lootboxes had 99% chance of giving you nothing - it would be more like gambling.
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
99% chance of getting nothing? Lol... maybe if all you play are slot machines.
Always get something decent? that's a matter of opinion. Personally I don't see a lot of value added in paying $5 for a couple XP potions.
Personally I call that, getting rooked.
Technically, you can all but guarantee about a 50% win rate if you just play red/black at the roulette table all night.
Casinos don't make money and keep people there by making them lose 99% of the hands/rounds they play.
I thought everthing give the casino an edge. I dont' play roulette. But I presume the casino have a 1% or 2% edge on red/black somehow if look in to the details more closely.
I browsed google there are actually a possible to roll green 0 and 00. So that is what give the casino an edge.
1 or 2% edge seems like nothing. But if you play 50 rounds and bet full amount every round, the loss is compoundly and on average you'll loss like 30% after that. I presume that is how card counter make so much money counting on black jack.
Casino's edge at Roulette is number 0 which is neither red or black. You're right the way you are calculating. When it comes down to the house or regulars they calculate very large volumes. Variance turns into a very different beast.
For instance a simple game of heads or tails; if you flip 10 times you might get heads every time. But if you flip 1 million times, you'll get much closer to %50.
Gambling schemes are most psychologically effective when the gambler feels like they're winning rounds regularly, even when their losses lose them more than their wins gain them.
And they literally jizz their pants whenever someone wins big and decides that they're on a "hot streak" and turns around to bet all those winnings on one or a few rounds.
Hmm I disagree on the regularly part. The thing is when you win the one time, you wire your brain that you can win again. Then consider your losses as bad luck. As I mentioned the variance before, even a blind pigeon can win once in a blue moon. That's enough of a hook for most people, and it's not a regular event at all.
Here's a personal story. Back in my poker days, we used to get a lot of business men during lunch break. They were high salaried executives with families and high stress jobs. So poker was their relief from everything, perfect prey.
Now I had to lose from time to time so they would keep on entertaining the illusion that they can beat me. I didn't lose any pot intentionally, as I said, even those fat blind pigeons could get lucky once in a while. What I did was not to let them forget their winning hands. So whenever I beat someone, I boosted his ego by talking about that time he had won. I logged all my games, and I believe the record of this trick working was about 80 days.
Imagine someone losing for more than two months, and still thinks he's fine because he won a pot from me 80 days prior. And this is pretty common.
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
In my opinion, gambling is not harmful if you manage your money correctly and know the extent of your excitement. I think so because I encountered a problem. Because of the pandemic, I lost my job and had to earn money at home. I found a way to earn money on roulette, betting, and poker here https://www.voltlunchbox.com/situs-judi-bola-resmi/ . I immediately took this matter seriously and compiled a betting table with all the upcoming and past matches, did an analysis, and then bet. I'm still learning how to play poker, but I like it.
Because people abuse something doesn't mean it's inherently evil. I think loot boxes suck just because of the PTW aspect. Gambling has nothing to do with it. Can't hand-hold every adult because a few don't have self-control. Grow up
Because people abuse something doesn't mean it's inherently evil. I think loot boxes suck just because of the PTW aspect. Gambling has nothing to do with it. Can't hand-hold every adult because a few don't have self-control. Grow up
Try again.
MMORPG just ran an article on this. 40% of kids that play videogames get involved in these lootboxes.
Get them away from kids and list the odds. Then let adults do what they want. But to use silliness like "grow up" really reflects an ignorance of reality.
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 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
Imho isn't that much worse than the current definition of gambling? At least with gambling you can potential get a cash payout which is usable in the real world.
Lootboxes take real money and give you a chance at a digital item that can't be used anywhere outside of the game it was bought in.
Gambling seems more fair than lootboxes imho
What I find funny is overall lootboxes hit the majority of what defines gambling, but because only one point doesn't match due to law not keeping up with modern technology, it gets an overall pass.
But in real world gambling the chance of getting nothing is enormous.
Lootboxes always give you something of value - not the prized 1/1000 item that you are looking for but you get something useful - like crafting mats, etc...
So lootboxes are more of RNG buying - if lootboxes had 99% chance of giving you nothing - it would be more like gambling.
Would it be better for games to not have lootboxes - yep - but for me personally - lootboxes are more of a mystery/RNG buy than gambling as you always get something decent - otherwise nobody would spend money on the stupid things.
So in reality - lootboxes have several key differences that make them unique and not a dead-ringer for gambling
99% chance of getting nothing? Lol... maybe if all you play are slot machines.
Always get something decent? that's a matter of opinion. Personally I don't see a lot of value added in paying $5 for a couple XP potions.
Personally I call that, getting rooked.
Technically, you can all but guarantee about a 50% win rate if you just play red/black at the roulette table all night.
Casinos don't make money and keep people there by making them lose 99% of the hands/rounds they play.
If memory serves me right Blackjack holds the best odds, I believe the house has a 1% edge in Blackjack.
Makes sense. I read an article about a year back that included the top 5 best odds, and I remember Roulette being on there for the black/red bet. I don't remember the other 4 they listed.
i won 4300 $ playing Roulette long ago .. was a great nite
I've never been a huge fan of gambling itself, but I gotta hand it to casinos- they are really good at making sure you have a great time. The banter across the tables (including with the dealers), the drinks poured freely, the overall atmosphere... Take the "I lost a ton of money" away, and it's essentially just an all night party.
The only reason i was at the roulette table is because drinks were free there ..
I didnt know that , Was my first time in a casino , I had just gotten out of Jail , was in a year and 1/2 , Turned 21 while in ..
When i got out a couple friends took me for a week to Paradise Island , was such a great time ..Anyhow i was getting drinks from the barmaid just walking around the Casino , after she had brought me my 3rd drink i said , Dam these are expensive and she tells me.. Drinks are free at the Tables !!!
SO sat down a t Roulette putting 1$ chips down and drinking for free.. Before i knew it i had a pile of chips and was laying down bigger bets .. Was so much fun ...
Then you discovered the stock market and it was like...
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
Because people abuse something doesn't mean it's inherently evil. I think loot boxes suck just because of the PTW aspect. Gambling has nothing to do with it. Can't hand-hold every adult because a few don't have self-control. Grow up
Try again.
MMORPG just ran an article on this. 40% of kids that play videogames get involved in these lootboxes.
Get them away from kids and list the odds. Then let adults do what they want. But to use silliness like "grow up" really reflects an ignorance of reality.
And then you realize Video Game Addiction is a thing and the government should ban gaming itself....
Because people abuse something doesn't mean it's inherently evil. I think loot boxes suck just because of the PTW aspect. Gambling has nothing to do with it. Can't hand-hold every adult because a few don't have self-control. Grow up
Try again.
MMORPG just ran an article on this. 40% of kids that play videogames get involved in these lootboxes.
Get them away from kids and list the odds. Then let adults do what they want. But to use silliness like "grow up" really reflects an ignorance of reality.
Parents ignorant of their children is the problem. The fact that something addictive exists is not the problem. It's ignorant to assume that the industry needs to change because parents can't care for their children. "get them away from kids" has been used for just about everything from video games to cigarettes to rock music. It's dumb. It doesn't work. And adding odds has never stopped a gambler from betting. Maybe we just need the industry to step in and show us all how we should behave. That will fix everything. Again, I don't like loot boxes, but I like oversight and being treated like a child even less. Bad games with loot boxes will always be there, I just choose to not play them, because I have free will.
One of the most popular "children's" games, Wizard 101 has loot boxes in the form of crown packs with a miniscule chance of winning something good. Yet, they continue to sell them in their crown shop to children. I don't see anyone complaining about this.
Because people abuse something doesn't mean it's inherently evil. I think loot boxes suck just because of the PTW aspect. Gambling has nothing to do with it. Can't hand-hold every adult because a few don't have self-control. Grow up
Try again.
MMORPG just ran an article on this. 40% of kids that play videogames get involved in these lootboxes.
Get them away from kids and list the odds. Then let adults do what they want. But to use silliness like "grow up" really reflects an ignorance of reality.
Parents ignorant of their children is the problem. The fact that something addictive exists is not the problem. It's ignorant to assume that the industry needs to change because parents can't care for their children. "get them away from kids" has been used for just about everything from video games to cigarettes to rock music. It's dumb. It doesn't work. And adding odds has never stopped a gambler from betting. Maybe we just need the industry to step in and show us all how we should behave. That will fix everything. Again, I don't like loot boxes, but I like oversight and being treated like a child even less. Bad games with loot boxes will always be there, I just choose to not play them, because I have free will.
Great. Amazing.
But you are not (at least I think so) a 7 yrs old kid playing a game which has no warning whatsoever on its cover about gambling related mechanics.
How parents should know where they are not aware of ongoing gaming industry things?
And, what has shown so far, the very kids were unaware they were actually spending money due wording those companies use.
They don't say "buy x" they use "get x". And thats make a big difference.
The same argument you are using were used about addicting drugs.
Can we at least get a 'label' of sorts on those games? Is it too much to ask? A warning for concerning parents?
Do you really expect a parent to make a deep research into which is basically a virtual toy? Where toys themselves have warning about choking hazard and such on its cover?
Label would check the "fair warning" box, sure. Main question is why a 7 year old has a credit card...? Parents can still research and take interest in what their children do.
Because people abuse something doesn't mean it's inherently evil. I think loot boxes suck just because of the PTW aspect. Gambling has nothing to do with it. Can't hand-hold every adult because a few don't have self-control. Grow up
Try again.
MMORPG just ran an article on this. 40% of kids that play videogames get involved in these lootboxes.
Get them away from kids and list the odds. Then let adults do what they want. But to use silliness like "grow up" really reflects an ignorance of reality.
Parents ignorant of their children is the problem. The fact that something addictive exists is not the problem. It's ignorant to assume that the industry needs to change because parents can't care for their children. "get them away from kids" has been used for just about everything from video games to cigarettes to rock music. It's dumb. It doesn't work. And adding odds has never stopped a gambler from betting. Maybe we just need the industry to step in and show us all how we should behave. That will fix everything. Again, I don't like loot boxes, but I like oversight and being treated like a child even less. Bad games with loot boxes will always be there, I just choose to not play them, because I have free will.
Great. Amazing.
But you are not (at least I think so) a 7 yrs old kid playing a game which has no warning whatsoever on its cover about gambling related mechanics.
How parents should know where they are not aware of ongoing gaming industry things?
And, what has shown so far, the very kids were unaware they were actually spending money due wording those companies use.
They don't say "buy x" they use "get x". And thats make a big difference.
The same argument you are using were used about addicting drugs.
Can we at least get a 'label' of sorts on those games? Is it too much to ask? A warning for concerning parents?
Do you really expect a parent to make a deep research into which is basically a virtual toy? Where toys themselves have warning about choking hazard and such on its cover?
Label would check the "fair warning" box, sure. Main question is why a 7 year old has a credit card...? Parents can still research and take interest in what their children do.
Never saw a 13 year old with a gift card? Or maybe Grandma got Johnny an EA card for his birthday thinking he'd get a game and Johnny buys lootboxes with the credits? Or maybe Jane made $20 shoveling snow as a 14 year old and walked to gamestop and bought a giftcard.
And what in the world is your problem with listing the odds? You know that's what has to happen with slot machines and scratch offs right? That's what we do with GAMBLING devices.
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
Because people abuse something doesn't mean it's inherently evil. I think loot boxes suck just because of the PTW aspect. Gambling has nothing to do with it. Can't hand-hold every adult because a few don't have self-control. Grow up
Try again.
MMORPG just ran an article on this. 40% of kids that play videogames get involved in these lootboxes.
Get them away from kids and list the odds. Then let adults do what they want. But to use silliness like "grow up" really reflects an ignorance of reality.
Parents ignorant of their children is the problem. The fact that something addictive exists is not the problem. It's ignorant to assume that the industry needs to change because parents can't care for their children. "get them away from kids" has been used for just about everything from video games to cigarettes to rock music. It's dumb. It doesn't work. And adding odds has never stopped a gambler from betting. Maybe we just need the industry to step in and show us all how we should behave. That will fix everything. Again, I don't like loot boxes, but I like oversight and being treated like a child even less. Bad games with loot boxes will always be there, I just choose to not play them, because I have free will.
Great. Amazing.
But you are not (at least I think so) a 7 yrs old kid playing a game which has no warning whatsoever on its cover about gambling related mechanics.
How parents should know where they are not aware of ongoing gaming industry things?
And, what has shown so far, the very kids were unaware they were actually spending money due wording those companies use.
They don't say "buy x" they use "get x". And thats make a big difference.
The same argument you are using were used about addicting drugs.
Can we at least get a 'label' of sorts on those games? Is it too much to ask? A warning for concerning parents?
Do you really expect a parent to make a deep research into which is basically a virtual toy? Where toys themselves have warning about choking hazard and such on its cover?
Label would check the "fair warning" box, sure. Main question is why a 7 year old has a credit card...? Parents can still research and take interest in what their children do.
Never saw a 13 year old with a gift card? Or maybe Grandma got Johnny an EA card for his birthday thinking he'd get a game and Johnny buys lootboxes with the credits? Or maybe Jane made $20 shoveling snow as a 14 year old and walked to gamestop and bought a giftcard.
And what in the world is your problem with listing the odds? You know that's what has to happen with slot machines and scratch offs right? That's what we do with GAMBLING devices.
Imho the 7 year old's gambling is not really that much of a problem, since with children that young parents usually still have enough control that the child can't buy much anything without the parent noticing.
The problem is that once the child is older and has control of her own money, there's no realistic way for parent to control how it's used. Pretty much all you can do is hope that there's nothing harmful being sold to your child that's within her budget.
Because people abuse something doesn't mean it's inherently evil. I think loot boxes suck just because of the PTW aspect. Gambling has nothing to do with it. Can't hand-hold every adult because a few don't have self-control. Grow up
Try again.
MMORPG just ran an article on this. 40% of kids that play videogames get involved in these lootboxes.
Get them away from kids and list the odds. Then let adults do what they want. But to use silliness like "grow up" really reflects an ignorance of reality.
And then you realize Video Game Addiction is a thing and the government should ban gaming itself....
Thats a slippery slope if I ever saw one.
They are not even talking about banning lootboxes...
Just making sure it doesn't end harming children.
You want to gamble, sure, go gamble - but there is a time and a place for that.
But you need to protect the kids from Video Game Addiction...so no one under 18 should be playing in the US.
Because people abuse something doesn't mean it's inherently evil. I think loot boxes suck just because of the PTW aspect. Gambling has nothing to do with it. Can't hand-hold every adult because a few don't have self-control. Grow up
Try again.
MMORPG just ran an article on this. 40% of kids that play videogames get involved in these lootboxes.
Get them away from kids and list the odds. Then let adults do what they want. But to use silliness like "grow up" really reflects an ignorance of reality.
And then you realize Video Game Addiction is a thing and the government should ban gaming itself....
Thats a slippery slope if I ever saw one.
They are not even talking about banning lootboxes...
Just making sure it doesn't end harming children.
You want to gamble, sure, go gamble - but there is a time and a place for that.
But you need to protect the kids from Video Game Addiction...so no one under 18 should be playing in the US.
Na you just need to tax gambling styled monetization out of existence. Easy come, easy go. I always say
Because people abuse something doesn't mean it's inherently evil. I think loot boxes suck just because of the PTW aspect. Gambling has nothing to do with it. Can't hand-hold every adult because a few don't have self-control. Grow up
Try again.
MMORPG just ran an article on this. 40% of kids that play videogames get involved in these lootboxes.
Get them away from kids and list the odds. Then let adults do what they want. But to use silliness like "grow up" really reflects an ignorance of reality.
Parents ignorant of their children is the problem. The fact that something addictive exists is not the problem. It's ignorant to assume that the industry needs to change because parents can't care for their children. "get them away from kids" has been used for just about everything from video games to cigarettes to rock music. It's dumb. It doesn't work. And adding odds has never stopped a gambler from betting. Maybe we just need the industry to step in and show us all how we should behave. That will fix everything. Again, I don't like loot boxes, but I like oversight and being treated like a child even less. Bad games with loot boxes will always be there, I just choose to not play them, because I have free will.
Great. Amazing.
But you are not (at least I think so) a 7 yrs old kid playing a game which has no warning whatsoever on its cover about gambling related mechanics.
How parents should know where they are not aware of ongoing gaming industry things?
And, what has shown so far, the very kids were unaware they were actually spending money due wording those companies use.
They don't say "buy x" they use "get x". And thats make a big difference.
The same argument you are using were used about addicting drugs.
Can we at least get a 'label' of sorts on those games? Is it too much to ask? A warning for concerning parents?
Do you really expect a parent to make a deep research into which is basically a virtual toy? Where toys themselves have warning about choking hazard and such on its cover?
Label would check the "fair warning" box, sure. Main question is why a 7 year old has a credit card...? Parents can still research and take interest in what their children do.
Never saw a 13 year old with a gift card? Or maybe Grandma got Johnny an EA card for his birthday thinking he'd get a game and Johnny buys lootboxes with the credits? Or maybe Jane made $20 shoveling snow as a 14 year old and walked to gamestop and bought a giftcard.
And what in the world is your problem with listing the odds? You know that's what has to happen with slot machines and scratch offs right? That's what we do with GAMBLING devices.
I have seen kids on you tube playing games which they were clearly too young to play, you can't rely on parents. That said, rather than framing this about the young it would be better to just realise we need to remove gambling from gaming. Adults get gambling addictions too.
Because people abuse something doesn't mean it's inherently evil. I think loot boxes suck just because of the PTW aspect. Gambling has nothing to do with it. Can't hand-hold every adult because a few don't have self-control. Grow up
Try again.
MMORPG just ran an article on this. 40% of kids that play videogames get involved in these lootboxes.
Get them away from kids and list the odds. Then let adults do what they want. But to use silliness like "grow up" really reflects an ignorance of reality.
And then you realize Video Game Addiction is a thing and the government should ban gaming itself....
Thats a slippery slope if I ever saw one.
They are not even talking about banning lootboxes...
Just making sure it doesn't end harming children.
You want to gamble, sure, go gamble - but there is a time and a place for that.
But you need to protect the kids from Video Game Addiction...so no one under 18 should be playing in the US.
Na you just need to tax gambling styled monetization out of existence. Easy come, easy go. I always say
We all need to rise up and ban gaming...it is evil and pollutes the mind.
Comments
It works well enough as long as you forbid him from spending any money, but past certain age you're in a situation where the kid can pick XBox gift card from nearest store and use it on Fortnite lootboxes (assuming he's playing on XBox).
A government enforced age limit would be better because it could limit those kids who are already old enough to go to local store and spend their own money.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Also the "always something useful" is very subjective. The game would need to have crafting in the first place and it depends on what the person feels is useful.
That also creates the second problem with lootboxes. Those useful items have to come from somewhere and be appealing. so they're puled from the game and the games grind is increased stupidly for the lootboxes. Battlefront 2 was good example.
So it's loss loss for player when it comes to lootboxes
I browsed google there are actually a possible to roll green 0 and 00. So that is what give the casino an edge.
1 or 2% edge seems like nothing. But if you play 50 rounds and bet full amount every round, the loss is compoundly and on average you'll loss like 30% after that. I presume that is how card counter make so much money counting on black jack.
For instance a simple game of heads or tails; if you flip 10 times you might get heads every time. But if you flip 1 million times, you'll get much closer to %50.
And they literally jizz their pants whenever someone wins big and decides that they're on a "hot streak" and turns around to bet all those winnings on one or a few rounds.
Here's a personal story. Back in my poker days, we used to get a lot of business men during lunch break. They were high salaried executives with families and high stress jobs. So poker was their relief from everything, perfect prey.
Now I had to lose from time to time so they would keep on entertaining the illusion that they can beat me. I didn't lose any pot intentionally, as I said, even those fat blind pigeons could get lucky once in a while. What I did was not to let them forget their winning hands. So whenever I beat someone, I boosted his ego by talking about that time he had won. I logged all my games, and I believe the record of this trick working was about 80 days.
Imagine someone losing for more than two months, and still thinks he's fine because he won a pot from me 80 days prior. And this is pretty common.
MMORPG just ran an article on this. 40% of kids that play videogames get involved in these lootboxes.
Get them away from kids and list the odds. Then let adults do what they want. But to use silliness like "grow up" really reflects an ignorance of reality.
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
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.
"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
"get them away from kids" has been used for just about everything from video games to cigarettes to rock music. It's dumb. It doesn't work. And adding odds has never stopped a gambler from betting. Maybe we just need the industry to step in and show us all how we should behave. That will fix everything.
Again, I don't like loot boxes, but I like oversight and being treated like a child even less. Bad games with loot boxes will always be there, I just choose to not play them, because I have free will.
Parents can still research and take interest in what their children do.
Or maybe Grandma got Johnny an EA card for his birthday thinking he'd get a game and Johnny buys lootboxes with the credits?
Or maybe Jane made $20 shoveling snow as a 14 year old and walked to gamestop and bought a giftcard.
And what in the world is your problem with listing the odds? You know that's what has to happen with slot machines and scratch offs right? That's what we do with GAMBLING devices.
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
The problem is that once the child is older and has control of her own money, there's no realistic way for parent to control how it's used. Pretty much all you can do is hope that there's nothing harmful being sold to your child that's within her budget.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee