I agree, but it's too late now.Leg End said:
We did not. That was the gaming industry choosing to be reasonable. I hoped they would do it again for the loot boxes; but despite people constantly telling and warning them to do so, it didn't happen. Instead of playing smart and avoiding this situation like before, they played dumb. They made their bed, and now all of us will have to lay on it.
Is it though? We've clearly pushed back against loot box fuckery regarding stuff like Battlefront II, and EA is genuinely beginning to suffer because of how stupid they're being.CaitSeith said:
Was speaking of people in the industry and those with a strong association with it, i.e Gamers.
Not really. Bills are failing and we're in a situation where, legally speaking and to my understanding, this is not in fact Gambling, as defined in US law. The territory we're going into is regulating things with any element of chance, and that has a mountain of potential issues going along with it. The best bet is to continue to shitsmear companies that are selling basically nothing, and not buy their products, or 'products'. If we give the government an inch, they're taking the mile and never giving it back. They want nothing more than to get their foot in the door. If people want to be stupid with their money, that is their decision.
If publishers and developers had any self-restrain, I'd agree with you. But they don't, and because of that they have attracted unwanted attention (and at this point well-deserved) from the governments. Sorry, but when it comes to intrusive lootboxes designed to be a psychological trap, the onus is no longer in the consumer.Leg End said:
This is industry regulatory practices being discussed. Nothing to do with your personal liberty or the art of games. This is the mechanical underpinnings and commercial overreach by the purveyors of said art.Leg End said:
I appreciate the caution, but you needn't worry, we tend to look at the context in which things are written rather than individual words. Rape, curse words etc, are all fine to say when not being used in an offensive manner or aimed at other users.RelativityMan said:
Because the government is made up of people who have absolutely no idea how tech work, pandering to voter who are old and for the most part uninterested in this aspect? Have you already forgotten every moral panic about banning violent video game? They'll see something that's consider gambling so they'll consult people who are expert on gambling and never worked with video game. Gambling law are already a nonsensical mess, I don't see why anyone would think gambling+video game would be any easier to regulate than gambling by itself. This isn't a personal belief thing, this is just a question of noticing obvious pattern.Fieldy409 said:
I remember, I also remember there were those in the government who believed that video games shouldn't be censored because they saw them as being no different that books or movies and therefore deserved the same protection under the first amendment. In 2011, the supreme court struck down a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors. So maybe the government isn't as incompetent as you think? Also if video game publishers don't want to be subjected to gambling restrictions then maybe they should not have gambling in them.Meiam said:
Current gambling laws are not perfect but its better than letting Casinos and the gambling industry as a whole have free reign to do what ever they want. And while writing laws for loot boxes in video games may not be easy i think that's a poor excuse to not do anything.Meiam said:
I disagree about the demand for loot boxes. Sale of loots boxes just means that the majority of people tolerate them and people buy them because its usually the only way to get cosmetics. Nobody was demanding loot boxes before they became widespread and I highly doubt people will miss them if they were to disappear over night. Also, aren't the vast majority of loot box and micro transaction purchases done by like 5%-10% of any given player base?Meiam said:
Overwatch required $60 when it first launched and given that this was Blizzards first original IP in several years I have no doubt that it made more than enough to fund future characters and maps without the help of loot boxes. If there were no lootboxes and blizzard decided to not add additional content then it would because they are greedy and not because they are barely making a profit. This whole argument that AAA companies need loot boxes to remain profitable is bullshit especially when you consider that a company like Activision is storing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax havens. Besides there are other kinds of mirco transactions that they could employ like allowing you to directly purchase cosmetics.Meiam said:
Maybe if loot boxes offered some kind of benefit to the players, but i honestly don't see one. Loot boxes have led to nothing but an inferior product and if people love the act of opening loot boxes so much then they can go play actual gambling games. No need to drag the rest of the industry down with them.Meiam said:
Sure it is. Shame EA into the depths of hell with it. Shine the light on their greed to the average joe, boycott their products. Not like they have anything worth buying anyway.CaitSeith said:
They can disagree with my understanding all they like. It means absolutely nothing to United States law and to me as a US citizen.
It's a foot in the door. With what happened only a decade ago, and the way the US is swinging about politically, I'm seeing flashbacks.Gordon_4 said:
Because historically, Video Games and Government have never, ever mixed well, and it might be a great example as to how Government leans far more heavily on crafting bad law and aiming for Nanny State than anything else. Video related, and basically what Meiam said.Fieldy409 said:
Not Anarchism, and some people just tend to see Government as bloated, wasteful, and being useful for a very select group of things, if anything at all. Games have done fine without the Government rectal examination.
The law was from 2005, but the SCOTUS case was heard in 2010 and decided in 2011.Zetatrain said:
No, that's pretty incompetent. You had the bill as sponsored by Leland Yee, a guy who was much later tried and convicted for trying to sell full-auto firearms and anti-armor weapons to Triads, endorsed by Hillary Clinton in a heated fervor, and signed in by the Terminator himself in the most beautiful case of Irony ever. No concerns at all regarding speech implications and Hillary was full-bore comparing violent games to alcohol, tobacco, porn, ect. That the Supreme Court ruled in Free Speech's favor was nothing short of an amazing miracle, but when was the last time a SCOTUS ruling on rights actually mattered to the Government? See: pretty much any case involving firearms, speech in general(or even the Miller Test existing which spits on the very concept, also approved by the Court), ect.
Not legally gambling. Legislation as crafted for this case would be affecting things down to TCG packs and pretty much any scenario with any hint of randomness. With the history of the US Government in regards to both actual Gambling and Video Games or even Games period, such as that whole hubbub with fucking pinball machines, yeah, I really don't see this as a good step in any direction. The difference here is, people are asking the incredibly inept out-of-touch people to stick their hand in, not realizing what that actually means. Does everyone in support of regulating Loot Boxes really want these idiots involved in anything?
It took the supreme court involvement to change the law... the law made it trough every level of government except the very last one. How is this suppose to reassure anyone as to the competence of the government?Zetatrain said:
So just because a few people buy them they should be illegal? Clearly people are okay with it, the cosmetic that they want to obtain are literally only being made because they can sell them trough loot box. If loot box didn't exist those cosmetic wouldn't have been made. People who don't care about cosmetic can simply not buy loot box, people who like cosmetic should be happy loot box exist because otherwise they wouldn't be made in the first place, even if they themselves don't spent money buying loot box.Zetatrain said:
Ever notice how additional content like cosmetic and such aren't being release for most single player game? Ever notice how cosmetic became much more common in most game after the concept of loot box was really launched? Those aren't unrelated. Loot box created a market worth exploiting when there wasn't one before. Part of the reason why loot box work is because you can obtain them for free playing, this is something that wouldn't work if they sold cosmetic directly.Meiam said:
The boxes need not be made illegal. If they constitute gambling, then games that contain them may be restricted to adults only. As gambling is currently and enjoying legal status and profitable existence.Leg End said:
Alright then. Assuming that under current definitions within the law, they legally qualify as gambling and they are to be regulated as such. All that happens and the Government steps in.Gordon_4 said:
Yeah, I've now realized that I shot myself in the foot with that example.Meiam said:
Zetatrain said:
I disagree, games had plenty of cosmetics before micro transactions and when direct pay micro transactions became popular there was no shortage of cosmetics. Things have just switched to loot boxes because it is more profitable not because it wasn't profitable at all before lootboxes. People should dislike loot boxes because they have very little control over which cosmetic they can choose. With previous micro transactions you could at least pay a fixed amount and choose which one you wanted if you didn't want to grind for hours for the in game currency to purchase it. With loot boxes you have to keep paying until the RNG grants you the cosmetic you want or grind for hours. And while I may be able to resist loot boxes(to say nothing of those who have poor impulse control) that doesn't change the unfortunate fact that loot boxes are making video games worse because developers are designing games around them. Lootboxes aren't providing any thing new that wasn't there before, they just change how we get it.Meiam said:
I remember cosmetics being common before the age of micro transactions and I remember cosmetics being common when they were being sold directly to players. The market for cosmetics existed before all this loot box nonsense started. Also, I'm pretty sure I've played games that sold cosmetics directly but still offered the option to grind for them.Meiam said:
To the games themselves? Absolutely nothing; they involve no risk other than a win/lose state such as Go Fish or Chess. Gambling on the outcome is unregistered and ergo already against the law. As for the booster packs, they are a tangible good that can be sold on to other parties or traded and in most cases the precise card required can be purchased directly for cash. Lootbox content cannot.Leg End said:Alright then. Assuming that under current definitions within the law, they legally qualify as gambling and they are to be regulated as such. All that happens and the Government steps in.Gordon_4 said:
What happens to this game?
Hell, what happens to this game then?
Or literally any Trading Card Game under the sun? Pokemon TCG suddenly goes into the same category as Poker and you can't even play it online in a shitload of states. That makes absolutely no sense to me in any conceivable way.
The virtual adaptations of the games in question feature virtual booster packs (Duel Links being the specific example). What happens? If every game adopted a system akin to integrated Steam Marketplace stuff, does that automatically fix the problem? Is it reselling that is the issue? There are such games with Lootbox content that can be resold, to my understanding.Gordon_4 said:
Actually having an electronic market place for the buying, selling and trading of duplicate items on a second hand basis would probably help a great deal.Leg End said:
