Gov't Regulation for Games Discussion- DLC related

zombiewizardhawk said:

So you wouldn't care if they just sold games at $139.99 instead of loot boxes?

Click to expand...

Do you have anything of value to add or are you just going to continue spewing your hyperbole?

Can't answer the question when you're the one who suggested they raise prices instead of using lootboxes to keep profits? How is that any less valuable than "good, I hope they make lootboxes so unprofitable that companies stop doing it"?

The answer to that question was already implied in the first post you quoted but then again look who I am dealing with here.

Yes, I would rather pay $45,000 american dollars for my video games.

You'd rather pay $45,000 for a video game than pay $59.99 for the same exact game that has an optional loot box in it and i'm the hyperbole-spewing drug addict...

A sarcastic response to your over the top claims is a bit beyond you isn't it?

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?

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.

zombiewizardhawk said:

Maybe I should ask if you understand that the entire purpose of game companies (any relevant to this topic, anyways) is to make profits?

Click to expand...

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.

Even without loot boxes all the free games on my niece's tablet are littered with "buy more" options. The goal is to get the parents to download it, have the kid enjoy it and feel compelled to buy more. Same goes for any programming you watch on TV where it is nothing but wall-to-wall "BUY THIS TOY!!!" ads. If you selectively choose what you can and cannot target towards children it becomes very muddy where the line is drawn.

Mao said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 an enumerated 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:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

zombiewizardhawk said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Dodsengel said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

The only thing I'd be interested in seeing is something like China, where they are required to post the odds of winning what various prize. So you can see from the get go that you are at a 1 in 1million chance to get that super rare gatchaman.

moonarchia As to the 'Its gambling so gambling laws' arguement: I have no problem with this. If its gambling, then its gambling and rules already exist for this and we really don't need to make new ones. What I keep hearing though is that people aren't just wanting to stop at restricting the gambling. They are wanting to go further to start making laws about DLC, pay to win and anything else that irks them in the video game industry's money grabbing tendencies.

Mao said:

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.

Click to expand...

Most of my knowledge involves skill and internet games because games of chance laws are dominated by the casinos. The basics of games of chance are essentially what you stated though: the player must have an actual chance of winning even if slight, the player must be legally permitted to make the wager, and whatever person or entity offering the game of chance must be legally permitted. Everything involving gambling though is extremely state specific: some states have different definitions of skill (although most are pretty similar), some have different ages for different types of gambling (18 for lottery & horse bets v. 21 for casinos), some allow otherwise illegal gambling so long as it relates to a charitable organization (this definition is workable too and can even be stretched in some states to simply mean that the proceeds ostensibly go to a charitable organization) such as a vets program or ethnic clubs, etc...

Most states have a skill games carve out because of places like Dave and Busters, but by creating those carve outs they are allowing for people to specifically design games of skill to fit into the carve out. This is an absolutely massive business that most people have no conception of, we're talking bottom of the barrel (in terms of design, skill to create, etc...) game designs selling for millions of dollars to be replicated into machines that can push $10k + per week (obviously location dependent but this is not an uncommon figure in a high traffic location). It gets really weird and specific when you start dealing with machines in certain states. For example an otherwise all digital machine that looks identical to a slot machine and even has a pull lever is not considered a gambling machine in some states because it has a free space in the middle of its screen and a paper reel inside the machine that gets pricked as the lever is pulled (the internal mechanics are a little more specific but this is the gist). That machine is considered a bingo machine and therefore falls under bingo laws which many states also have a carve out for.

Dodsengel said:

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?

Click to expand...

I'm not a helicopter parent, fuck I'm not even a parent. My main reason is that I have an addictive personality. Once I get something good, I want more. So, fuck the children, I'm looking out for my own ass here, and I see that this is bullshit. I can see my own blood, sweat, and tears being washed down the drain.

Skanda said:

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.

Click to expand...

So your answer for why raising prices is better than mtx/loot boxes is "go do some homework and then ask me"? Glad to know you're just another fucking retard on the "They ruined my hobby" bandwagon mad because someone made a product you didn't like.

Marv said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

moonarchia said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

zombiewizardhawk said:

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.

Click to expand...

You don't need to sell them for a profit though. All you need to do is to be able to have a chance at winning the game more. See, here's the thing.

The gaming companies, all of them, are selling us shit boxes (formerly known as loot boxes) that give us significantly higher odds at winning the game. This excludes games like Overwatch, CS:GO, and GW2, 'cause they only sell cosmetic shit. This hasn't stopped the secondary gambling market for these goods though. Higher odds at winning the game equals more points in the game, which usually equals higher credits earned from the game. So, it's kind'a a ying with a 1% chance of yang beating you scenario.

BFII avoided this entire gambit by awarding players the same amount of credits each match. Players were still smart enough to call them on their bullshit though.