So you wouldn't care if they just sold games at $139.99 instead of loot boxes?
Nerds are probably worse, since it's a higher chance a nerd will have OCD, or aspie and MUST HAVE, an all orange platemail.Nerds are the same as anyone else when it comes to gambling and addictions. Better to regulate it now before people start knocking over liquor stars to get their next loot box.
Maybe I should ask if you understand that the entire purpose of game companies (any relevant to this topic, anyways) is to make profits?
The problem I feel with all this is the old saying, "Once you pay the Danegeld, you're never rid of the Dane."
I don't think government will do anything to solve this 'loot box problem' you all keep talking about. Yes, targeting kids is predatory sales but lets be honest. Do you really think the government is going to do much to really stop it? They are just going to regulate stuff and then tax shit. Say you can't buy them unless you are 18. Or even 21. But isn't that already the case? You can't buy that shit unless you are 18 already with a credit card officially. So it will be mostly the same but..... Now we have the government telling game companies what they can and can't do. I don't think it will stop at just loot boxes. Next big media spin and who knows what we get. Picture if there was an actual solid regulatory committee for 'video games' when Gamergate hit? You saw how the media outrage was over that. We need to protect the children and the women! We need laws to stop this abusive behaviour in video games. We need to save our children from this unconscious programming. I don't want my kid to turn into a rapist! Boom. They smell votes and good PR. Lets pass some bills.
So I don't think it will do any of the real things you all want about making the shitty game companies stop trying to squeeze money out of every fucking orifice they can find. Instead, we'll just have them paying lobbyists and eventually getting appointed to government commissions to oversee video game standards and we'll have companies on one hand trying to fuck us for money and now on the other the government trying to figure out how to get their danegeld out of the industry (and us) while regulating bullshit laws to get votes in the name of 'protecting the kids' or some shit.
EA got pilloried in the news and its stock took a fucking massive hit. I'd rather they just learn their lesson that way than invite the government to get involved and end up with two parties trying to fuck me in the ass.
We don't need to worry about the 20th century's definition of gambling because we have the 21st century's legal definitions of gambling which have specific enumerations for internet gaming/gambling but why worry about that when we can just think of the children?However, the issue is not whether predatory loot boxes fit into the existing 20th century legal definition of gambling which typically requires the possibility of players receiving currency in return for risking their money. Rather, the issues is the fact that predatory loot box mechanics present the same psychological and social dangers as gambling, and that youth and young adults are specifically targeted and exposed to these exploitive practices.
Oh, only you are allowed to be sarcastic or over the top?
Explain to me how it is better for game companies to charge a higher price for the same games they are currently making (or give an example of how the removal of loot boxes would somehow result in game companies producing better quality games) than it is for them to sell them at the current price point with optional loot boxes/cosmetics/etc.
Maybe I should ask if you understand that the entire purpose of game companies (any relevant to this topic, anyways) is to make profits?
I am interested, if you have knowledge of the topic, in knowing what the laws entail more specifically. As far as I understand the only two main requirements are that the games aren't 'rigged' in some way to artificially deflate your odds, and that you are of majority age to participate.I haven't kept up with the thread so I apologize if this opinion has already been expressed but I figure I'll give my two cents anyway since I have knowledge of federal and state gambling laws. Federally speaking, I think the first hurdle is actually establishing loot boxes as a bet or wager. For a bet or wager, you need to put up something of value (money obviously) towards a game of chance in which you will potentially receive something of value. I'm not so sure you're actually receiving something of value though because what you receive is non-transferable and cannot be converted into any kind of currency to use outside of the game. Using in-game credit on games of chance is a numerated exemption so long as the rewards are in-game only. That can be extrapolated to mean that in-game only rewards are not considered valuable per the gaming laws. As to state laws, many states have two gambling carve outs: games of skill and games where gambling is NOT the primary element. Obviously a loot box is not a game of skill but you'd have a tough time arguing the loot box function is a primary element of the gameplay considering you can effectively play the game without ever even touching a loot box.
Moreover, you can play these games and get loot boxes but never spend actual money just by garnering in game credits. The fact that they offer you the ability to spend money on a facet of the game that can also be obtained for free isn't strong enough to rise to the level of gambling imo. Especially if you buy credits with money and then use those credits on loot boxes.
Based on the video I have to assume this is a PR move attempting to capitalize on the EA drama. From the Hawaii guy's letter:
We don't need to worry about the 20th century's definition of gambling because we have the 21st century's legal definitions of gambling which have specific enumerations for internet gaming/gambling but why worry about that when we can just think of the children?
I am interested, if you have knowledge of the topic, in knowing what the laws entail more specifically. As far as I understand the only two main requirements are that the games aren't 'rigged' in some way to artificially deflate your odds, and that you are of majority age to participate.
We don't need to worry about the 20th century's definition of gambling because we have the 21st century's legal definitions of gambling which have specific enumerations for internet gaming/gambling but why worry about that when we can just think of the children?
Another stupid statement. No shit Sherlock, something that would take care of itself by raising prices. As to the rest of your retarded post it's painfully obvious you haven't been paying attention to either Battlefront 2 or Destiny 2 news. Go do some homework and then come back and ask me why I think upfront costs would be better then the kind of shit they've been pulling on the playerbase in the name of encouraging lootbox sales.
Hopefully at some point people are going to smarten up and boycott these glorified casinos gaming companies, so then they stop making those profits and we can get some sanity back in the gaming industry. Im sure CK2 is a great game but at 200$ for a 5 year old game with all the DLCs they can suck my dick.
Gambling is already highly regulated in most of the states. EA wants to add it to their games, then they need to fall under the same regulations. Easy peasy.
CK2 has nothing to do with loot boxes or gambling, that company just releases tons of DLC for their games. Europa Universalis is the same thing. Total War is a different company but it's also the same thing. MMO's with 40 expansions are also the same thing (although most of them end up doing "catch-up" type package deals after they're a few expansions deep).
If they want to add a form of actual gambling, sure. I don't think rng boxes are gambling that needs regulation unless it produces items that you can sell for a profit, though.