gaming Should Lootboxes/microtransactions be banned?

[The Historian 518]

Where is personal responsibility and accountability in all of this? Surely there must still be some in there. The individual must still be held accountable for his or her actions without blame being placed anywhere else. Sorry, but I really don't want big brother guv'mint telling me what I can and cannot do with my free time and my money. I don't feel like the government should be babysitting people.

That's not to say addiction isn't an issue, because it most definitely is. But that's a mental health problem, not something regulation will fix or even change.

[Pentium100 2,296]

So, you do not believe that there should be restrictions on what children can and cannot do? There used to be cartoon characters marketing cigarettes to kids, now there are online casinos for kids.

 

Maybe restricting the alcohol/cigarettes/gambling to adults only could actually save some kids from addiction. And kids are not adults, they do not have the same mental capacity and responsibility. This is how the law treats them (no driving, no voting, protection from harm etc)

[Stone Cold Steve Jobs 22,504]

All I want is for game companies to release games that have been 100% completed again.

Now they just show trailers of games that are nowhere near completion because that’s how they usually release them.

You can complain and “boycott” loot boxes and stuff all you want but the reason they exist is primarily because they’re purchased by spoiled kids with no concept of the value of a dollar from parents who are afraid to say no, or from grown men and women who don’t understand or care for the value of a dollar.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Stone Cold Steve Tuna

[Usager 433]

I dont mind them if they are cheap or just cosmetics (im max lvl with high lvl/maxed cards on clash royale totally free )

But yes, they need to be stopped for the sake of people with gambling addiction.

Plus, companies dont care about warn about it, like that story about a kid wasting a lot of his parent money on fifa... they didnt get their money back. They just took your money like the disgusting pigs they are.

[Angle Alastor 3,806]

yep they should be!!.

[Passion 3,489]

On 8/5/2019 at 4:01 PM, Sunny Fox said:

If it's an honest attempt to include those with more money but less time and is attainable (for reasonable assessments of attainable) by simply playing the game, I'm fine with it. When it's forced on players purely to satisfy corporate greed, then I have an issue with it.

I am going to disagree with this conditionally. Lootboxes can be in game provided they do not give you advantage over others and are placed on a margin. No flashy lights, no unneccessary elation, no psychological and social manipulation of subtle human mind weaknesses.

If they're fair and square up there without being presented as the most glorious thing ever, but they simply give an absolute vibe of being optional, I'm fine.

On 8/19/2019 at 5:46 AM, The Historian said:

With the continuing rise in production costs for larger budget titles, continual revenue streams versus the pay up front model gives back to the people who make games without requiring extra effort making content.

If you look at the companies which use the argument of raising production costs, this is laughable. Their revenue streams are absolutely over the top with their live service games. And before you say "it's thanks to lootboxes", look at Digital Extremes' Warframe. No lootboxes. Nothing even remotely close to gambling. And they are providing a top notch quality game with mechanics and complexity starting to surpass many modern games, with tons of content. I don't see them complaining about production costs even though their game is bigger than many AAA titles.

Then again, they also don't reward their COs with millions upon millions of dollars just for being hired and actually pay their workers a normal wage.

14 hours ago, Jedishy said:

In short its saying lets ban something because I dont like it or people make bad decisions. No the government is not there to wipe your bottom and clean up your mistakes. So either stop buying them and force the market to change or they deserve to be around so long as the consumer decides to pay for them 

 

14 hours ago, Jedishy said:

That argument makes as much sense as saying lets ban a sticker machine or prize machine you put a quarter into to get a randoms sticker/prize. All this is, is saying " we dont have self control so lets beg pappy gubbament to clean our bottoms " 

There is a subtle issue you seem to be omitting here. If it is so easy to just control yourself, why do addiction counseling offices even exist? After all, alcoholism, smokig, drugs... you should be able to just control yourself and let them go.

The connection between these and loot boxes is chemistry. The excitement of taking risks and elation from winning stems from serotonin and dopamin hormones. And this is not something you can just say no to, there's a reason chronic gaming is considered an addiction. You are not addicted to the act itself, you are addicted to the joy caused by the hormones produced that make you feel happy. And companies know that.

The issue with lootboxes is not that they exist, but how they are handled. Companies openly hire psychologists and behaviorists because they know well that human mind is prone to manipulation. And these people tell them how to design their monetization to coerce your average Joe into spending his money. These are specialistic tailored designs to force you to create hormones influencing your body and getting you addicted to them. This is exactly the same premise on which gambling operates. And if no regulation is required for loot boxes, why would it be required for gambling? Smoking? Drinking or drugs? After all, people should control themselves right?

So yes. I do expect government to come and wipe butts of those who cannot do it themselves, else companies will never cease their predatory tactics which catch innocent bystanders in crossfire and influence their experience whether they buy or not. Like locking out game content behind lootboxes when a few years back you'd get a full, finished game with no content paywalled. Be it cosmetic or not.

If you want to see what's wrong with industry and boxes, look no more than Rainbow Six Siege.

13 hours ago, Jedishy said:

Do you want to ban fast food? Why not all food? Cause you can make poor food choices even without fast food. So what do you want the government to tell you what to eat and ration your food for you? No? Oh well then I guess the answer is the same here. People need to control themselves or their kids or they suffer the consiquences of their failure to be responsible.

No parents should be responsible and watch their kids and ensure they cant just buy random stuff. If parents suck so bad that they cant manage that then maybe we should consider taking their kids or locking them up for being neglectful? I mean why not if we want to punish companies why not punish the person with ya know the actual responsibility to control their lives or their kids? 

The fundamental difference between food and lootboxes is that you require food to survive, lootboxes are a commodity you need not require to live. Moreover, fast food gives you instant reward for your bad choice. People mostly choose fast food because it tastes good to them. This is their instant gratification for their poor choice. Meanwhile, you can buy 20 lootboxes and get nothing. Null, nada, zero. You just lost your money and gained nothing. Fast food is at least guaranteed to sate your hunger and reward you with good taste. You get what you order, no random chances. You don't order a pizza and suddenly find you've been delivered an omelette with spinach. You order a pizza and you get a pizza, case closed.

As for parents... Jedi, I do not know what you do for living, but how much do you know about nuclear fusion's technicalities? NASA calculations required to launch a space shuttle? Type of bolts required to build a car? Carpentry? Surgery? IT? Cyber security? The point I make here: how can you expect that every parent out there will be able to master technology to a point they will be able to protect their children effectively, especially that companies actively do NOTHING to provide parents with appropriate parental controls for games. Even ESRB openly LIES when labelling the games. Have you seen recent NBA 2K20 trailer? I recommend you go watch it. It is rated "3 or older". 3. Years. Or older. That is a f joke.

My parents, 10 years ago, would not be able to protect me from jack shit because I was actually the one fixing their PCs, softwarwe, hardware. They are great at many things, but they cannot handle new technology. And nobody is making it easier for them either. You may say for some it is not rocket science, but there are others who would not be able to wrap their heads around technology, let alone security software for their kids.

[Jedishy 3,549]

9 minutes ago, Passion said:

So yes. I do expect government to come and wipe butts of those who cannot do it themselves, else companies will never cease their predatory tactics which catch innocent bystanders in crossfire and influence their experience whether they buy or not. Like locking out game content behind lootboxes when a few years back you'd get a full, finished game with no content paywalled. Be it cosmetic or not.

 

No sorry this is you wanting to grease the slope to infanilizing the world and just begging that liberty be sacrificed on a laughable alter of " security ". I mean why stop here. Oh you want to pull a stupid skateboard trick that got you hurt " for the gram " well lets just beat down legally the skateboard maker, the social media site, and oh idk the owner of the land where you did it. I mean who cares about personal responsibility any more we are just babies that need to be watched over and cleaned by the government. In short its a laughable attempt to bubble wrap the world rather then hold people accountable for their own choices. 
Because if you knew the first thing about addiction counseling you would know the first first lesson is that its YOUR choice to get better and keep  on the path to healing. But you would strip away agency from even nonaddicts instead. 

 

13 minutes ago, Passion said:

The fundamental difference between food and lootboxes is that you require food to survive, lootboxes are a commodity you need not require to live. Moreover, fast food gives you instant reward for your bad choice. People mostly choose fast food because it tastes good to them. This is their instant gratification for their poor choice. Meanwhile, you can buy 20 lootboxes and get nothing. Null, nada, zero. You just lost your money and gained nothing. Fast food is at least guaranteed to sate your hunger and reward you with good taste.

 

Wrong you did not gain nothing. You gain an item. You knew the item might not be what you want. Its not even like true gambling as in real gambling you might get nothing at all. So cute try but epic fail. 

Further you need food to live. what you dont need is fast food or food choice. So by your logic why should the government not control your diet via force of law? Oh too far you say? You apparently dont know how laws work then. Because legal precedent is a thing and once justification becomes codifed its streached to fit areas you would NEVER expect. But keep selling liberty for safety that always worked sooooooo well in the path right? 

17 minutes ago, Passion said:

e point I make here: how can you expect that every parent out there will be able to master technology to a point they will be able to protect their children effectively, especially that companies actively do NOTHING to provide parents with appropriate parental controls for games. Even ESRB openly LIES when labelling the games. Have you seen recent NBA 2K20 trailer? I recommend you go watch it. It is rated "3 or older". 3. Years. Or older. That is a f joke.

1. Yes I can. Its called do not be a lazy sack of crap and learn how to care for your kids if you choose to have them. Get online and get to learning and download what you need to protect your kids otherwise you are an unfit parents. My parents knew NOTHING about computers when we got one. Guess what they learned and kept watch and got the software needed and they did it with my dad working 70 hours a week and my mom close to 50 or more herself. So I dont want to hear the whining of but its haaaaard.

2. Its not anyones responsibility to give you crap for your kids but YOU. Do your homework and keep watch for stuff you dont want them to see or you do not deserve kids and should likely be charged with negelect if you want to whine that someone else should be doing your job as a parent. 
 

3. Watched the tailor and I have yet to see anything that would be not ok for a small child. So it sounds like YOU just want the world to be cotton candy and bubble wrap for us all if you think a video of kids playing dodge ball/basketball in an urban environment is too much for small kids. ( Never mind you cry that people are lying but likely do not even know what standards garner what rating so you have no basis to yell lie from....  )

[Jedishy 3,549]

11 hours ago, Pentium100 said:

What is wrong with my proposal that the loot boxes be regulated (that would include regulating the chance of winning) just like regular casinos? This would mean classifying the games as adult only, just like porn games. Adults would still be able to buy such games no problem, so your choice would not be reduced. Children would not be able to easily get them, which, IMO, is also good. Or do you really want the children to be exploited just so that some big company gets a bit more money?

 

By the way, in my country, there are strict requirements for food that is sold in schools. The child can go to a fast food place if one is nearby, but is not able to buy unhealthy food at the school.

Whats wrong well lets see 
 

1. You want to force the economic hand rather then let people CHOOSE what they wish themselves or their kids to have access too. That is draconian and sells liberty down river and is almost always done by people whose knowledge of legal precedent and what it means is next to zero. 
2. I am tired of people whining about " but thing of the children " rather then ya know telling people if you dont want your kid to buy something gee maybe be an adult and dont allow them the money to do so and then the game companies would have to change on their own. In short I loath anything that takes away responsibility from where it should be. 
3. Its not like gambling as you do not ever lose you always get something. And you know from the outset it might not be what you want. 

4. Cute dodge of the food issue. Nah by your logic we should not give people a choice on what their kids eat or even they themselves eat cause too many people are overweight now so we gotta wipe their bottoms and clean up their personal choices for them. Cant let people become addicted to food now can we? We cant afford all the medical bills from the health issues being obese brings. Or are you saying we should let the terrible food companies exploit children so that they suffer from childhood diabetes and various other health problems? ( Funny how that logic is a double edged sword eh? ) 

[Pentium100 2,296]

1. So, kids are probably very obedient where you live or they are not allowed outside without at least one parent present at all times. I do not think allowing the sale of alcohol or fireworks to kids is such a good idea. hen again, maybe it would be good - all the stupid ones would blow themselves up so only the smart ones would remain. See, restricting something to adults only does not make it impossible for kids to get it, even alcohol and fireworks - their parents can buy those items for them. And that actually allows the parent to CHOOSE whether or not their kid gets access to dangerous things as opposed to letting a 7 year old choose for himself. The situation now is different because games with loot boxes are not labeled as such, just like if I sold you some food with lead in it (and no label).

2. So, let's say I do not want a kid to buy fireworks and use them without supervision. But I do want the kid to be able to buy other stuff that is less dangerous. So, your proposal is to accompany the kid everywhere (that's assuming I cannot make him perfectly obedient) or not give him any money whatsoever. Gee, talk about drastic measures. So, the society decided that it would be better if certain items were not sold to kids directly, only an adult can buy them and give it to them (though if you give alcohol to your kid and the government finds out, your kid will be taken away). And while "think of the children" is a bit overused, I think it applies here. In essence, this could be used to remove any and all regulations - after all, people should be able to choose anything and everything. OK, I want some old style leaded gas. And to be allowed to smoke inside a bar.

3. Really? Awesome, so, if I take a slot machine, make it pay out at least 1 cent instead of zero and clearly label "you may not win the jackpot" I could place it in a school. That's really great, I wonder why casinos did not pick upon that, I guess their managers (and lawyers) are stupid if it's so easy to get around the law. People going to a casino know that they may not win the jackpot. Though maybe we should just kill all the gambling addicts.

4. In my country it is forbidden to sell unhealthy food in schools (though not forbidden to sell it near a school).  Also, fast food is kinda expensive here, you have to earn a good salary to be able to afford to eat at McDonald's every time. And yes, if your country has a lot of obese people (and a lot of children with diabetes), then maybe there should be some limits placed on fast food because it shows that people are not responsible. But if saying "be responsible" fixes it, then I guess there is no problem.

 

In a democratic country, the government does things that the majority (who elected them) want. And, guess what? Who I vote for is also a choice. So, if you vote for a politician who promises to allow the sale of fireworks to kids, but more people vote against him, then maybe it is a decision of the society that fireworks should not be sold to kids.

[Jedishy 3,549]

1 hour ago, Pentium100 said:

The situation now is different because games with loot boxes are not labeled as such, just like if I sold you some food with lead in it (and no label).

Yea there is no way to know whats in a game... nah you should never investigate the media your kid partakes in to ensure that you did not miss something nah no way... what a crock. 

1 hour ago, Pentium100 said:

So, let's say I do not want a kid to buy fireworks and use them without supervision. But I do want the kid to be able to buy other stuff that is less dangerous. So, your proposal is to accompany the kid everywhere (that's assuming I cannot make him perfectly obedient) or not give him any money whatsoever. Gee, talk about drastic measures. So, the society decided that it would be better if certain items were not sold to kids directly, only an adult can buy them and give it to them

Or how about said person be a real parent and know whats in your kids room. My parents found every single thing I tried to sneak past them. But that is because they did their job. 

Further if you cant control what goes on in your OWN HOME you have no business being a parent. Especially if it goes on more then once. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Pentium100 said:

. Really? Awesome, so, if I take a slot machine, make it pay out at least 1 cent instead of zero and clearly label "you may not win the jackpot" I could place it in a school. That's really great, I wonder why casinos did not pick upon that, I guess their managers (and lawyers) are stupid if it's so easy to get around the law. People going to a casino know that they may not win the jackpot. Though maybe we should just kill all the gambling addicts.

Cute it has no business in a learning environment but sweet goal post moving and red herring introduction. On the other hand games that have look boxes have clear media behind them telling you what they do or dont do. If you cant do two seconds of research on what you let in your house and control what and where you kid has the ability to buy you have no business having kids or even being allowed to make your own choices in life. 

1 hour ago, Pentium100 said:

. And yes, if your country has a lot of obese people (and a lot of children with diabetes), then maybe there should be some limits placed on fast food because it shows that people are not responsible. But if saying "be responsible" fixes it, then I guess there is no problem.

 

You assume we should save people from their bad choices. Why don't we just kneel down, beg for a slave collar and turn your decision making to other people then? Because clearly if we cant be trusted to take the consequences of our actions we cant be trusted to live on our own. 

1 hour ago, Pentium100 said:

In a democratic country, the government does things that the majority (who elected them) want. And, guess what? Who I vote for is also a choice. So, if you vote for a politician who promises to allow the sale of fireworks to kids, but more people vote against him, then maybe it is a decision of the society that fireworks should not be sold to kids.

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Sorry but a cry of " the herd has spoken " wont wash with someone that believes in liberty, personal choice, and responsibilities that come with those. Unless it inherently hurts someone by its mere existence then its not to be banned. If it has to be abused in order to do harm then its on the heads of those that abuse it to take the fallout from it. Well that is if you believe people should be free and not cattle. 

[Pentium100 2,296]

16 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Yea there is no way to know whats in a game... nah you should never investigate the media your kid partakes in to ensure that you did not miss something nah no way... what a crock.

Which is why there should be no labels on food. You can always do a chemical analysis to figure out if it has lead or something that you are allergic to.

 

Anyway, in your ideal system, 80% of kids are taken away from their parents and raised by the State (or being a parent requires proving responsibility and getting a license). Because a lot of people are not perfect parents. Both the State and the "good" parents control every move of the children until they come of age and immediately become responsible for themselves. 

Less intelligent people (including old people and kids with "bad" parents) are there to be exploited in making a profit.

All kinds of drugs are not only legal, but advertised (hey, kids, meth is awesome!).

 

By the way, in your opinion, should poor people get welfare from the State or should they be left alone to turn to crime or just starve to death? Or maybe crime should be a good way to earn money? I mean if someone can beat you up and take your stuff, then you clearly were not responsible enough to defend against him.

[Passion 3,489]

Alright, first, personal issues with this reply:

3 hours ago, Jedishy said:

1. No sorry this is you wanting to grease the slope to infanilizing the world and just begging that liberty be sacrificed on a laughable alter of " security ".

2. ( Never mind you cry that people are lying but likely do not even know what standards garner what rating so you have no basis to yell lie from....  )

1. Rather than trying to tell me what I am thinking based on very scarce data you are provided with I'd very much more want you to focus just on points and counterpoints of examples we are discussing.

2. On what basis are you making that claim? I am assuming that, since you've made it, you can support it with something to prove its truth.

 

3 hours ago, Jedishy said:

1. I mean why stop here. Oh you want to pull a stupid skateboard trick that got you hurt " for the gram " well lets just beat down legally the skateboard maker, the social media site, and oh idk the owner of the land where you did it. I mean who cares about personal responsibility any more we are just babies that need to be watched over and cleaned by the government. In short its a laughable attempt to bubble wrap the world rather then hold people accountable for their own choices.

2. Because if you knew the first thing about addiction counseling you would know the first first lesson is that its YOUR choice to get better and keep  on the path to healing. But you would strip away agency from even nonaddicts instead.

 

3. Wrong you did not gain nothing. You gain an item. You knew the item might not be what you want. Its not even like true gambling as in real gambling you might get nothing at all. So cute try but epic fail. 

 

4. Further you need food to live. what you dont need is fast food or food choice. So by your logic why should the government not control your diet via force of law? Oh too far you say? You apparently dont know how laws work then. Because legal precedent is a thing and once justification becomes codifed its streached to fit areas you would NEVER expect.

 

5. Yes I can. Its called do not be a lazy sack of crap and learn how to care for your kids if you choose to have them. Get online and get to learning and download what you need to protect your kids otherwise you are an unfit parents. My parents knew NOTHING about computers when we got one. Guess what they learned and kept watch and got the software needed and they did it with my dad working 70 hours a week and my mom close to 50 or more herself. So I dont want to hear the whining of but its haaaaard.

6. Its not anyones responsibility to give you crap for your kids but YOU. Do your homework and keep watch for stuff you dont want them to see or you do not deserve kids and should likely be charged with negelect if you want to whine that someone else should be doing your job as a parent. 
 

7. Watched the tailor and I have yet to see anything that would be not ok for a small child. So it sounds like YOU just want the world to be cotton candy and bubble wrap for us all if you think a video of kids playing dodge ball/basketball in an urban environment is too much for small kids. ( Never mind you cry that people are lying but likely do not even know what standards garner what rating so you have no basis to yell lie from....  )

1. I have yet to see someone consider lootboxes as their hobby, but I guess people with abundance of money or compulsive spending disorders can sometimes happen in this field. But let's roll with your example.

It is true that lootboxes are not yet widespread considered as gambling, however it is also true that it has been proven via research they are indeed deeply connected to spending issues via Zendle's and Cairn's research funded by York St. John University's Department of Art, Design, and Computer Science. It currently seems that the only reason they are not outlawed yet is becase they are a fairly new occurence, and law is taking time to catch up with this new marketing development.

It has been however easily proven that lootbox practices utilize a number of shady and immoral solutions which are designed in a way to encourage and develop unhealthy spending habits and gambling addiction. These include slot-machine like designs, lack of clarification on reward chances, abuse of emotional distraught during losing streaks to gain instant gratification by spending small sums of money, perceived envy of other's possessions and a few others.

Based on that, Belgium and Dutch have already deemed lootboxes as gambling and illegal, while many other countries are looking into the issue the moment we speak.

I have now given you a number of examples as to why the industry, which has had years to regulate itself and has been given multiple warnings by governments across the world, is in line for regulation for their predatory behavior and refusal to regulate itself.

Now, to move to your example. Can you provide me with shady and immoral practices which skateboard maker, social media site and owner of the land use to manipulate you into developing skateboarding addiction?

 

2. Indeed. It is our choice. Yet, when you walk up to a person and ask them if they know they should quit, they say yes. If you ask them if they know if it is their choice, they say yes too. Still, they don't quit. Your words solidify my statement. Dropping addiction is not just as easy as deciding to stop just like that. You've said it yourself, it's the first lesson. But there are many further lessons and steps that need to be taken.

 

3. Epic fail from whose side? I made this point believing you will research it based on the so called perceived value of the item. Based on my own experiences as a lootbox user as well as my friends and a few communities I am a part of, people generally do not buy lootboxes to get whatever the heck they drop. They have a certain reward in mind they are hunting for, or a few rewards. This makes the perceived value of these items significantly greater than any other item you do not care the lootbox may contain. You have proven that I should have worded my sentence more carefully therefore let me amend it.

In order to get a hamburger, you go and buy a hamburger. It is still fast food, it is still worse decision. But you don't have to buy multiple hamburgers to get a hamburger. And then you have lootboxes. You saw an awesome skin somebody else has, you checked it in game and you really want it. You buy 20 boxes. The skin does not drop. Many items you have found are duplicates of what you've already had. The perceived value of items you have gathered altogether is fairly miniscule and you leave with sore taste in your mouth. Sure, you gained something, but you did not gain the thing you wanted. You gambled and you lost. Your money feels wasted. Now, some people will take this lesson and leave. But there are others who will not, because gambling is their drug.

This is what a sensible, moral company would do: Warframe

This is what a greed driven company does: FIFA

Of course, you will say that the latter is the parent's fault, and I will vastly agree. But I do not feel your quest for freedom and liberty should be achieved by giving corporations free hand to do whatever they please, including development of unhealthy habits not only in kids, but also teenagers and adult people alike. Because diversity is a thing, and not everyone is as resilent to company BS as you or me are.

 

4. Interesting you say that, because some USA government officials are already trying to do that, and they did not have to wait for lootboxes to be regulated as a precedent. Then again, you already have things like Marijuana regulated here and there, wouldn't that make for a precedent?

Still, since you are appealing to the extremes, can you tell me why the government isn't regulating our food already by now? What stops them?

 

5. I sincerely am glad you have parents who are able to pull it off AND are tech-savvy enough to master it. See, my parents work and worked similar hours. My dad works 55 hours / week with my mom working regular 40 / week but also taking many additional jobs due to financial necessity, while being disabled. Yet, they are not able to master the software to a point where they would be able to, with most certainly, guarantee the safety. Simply because even in spite of their many efforts (I was heavily addicted to gaming back when I was young), they simply were not able to handle the technology which was very new to them at the time, and I was born into the family in their late years.

And there are families with people who are even less capable of it, or have never even used a computer to this day. To some of them, doing this might be just about as hard as learning the hardest imaginable language for themselves. So while it's great and commendable your parents were able to pull it off, you should understand that not every person is as capable as they are.

 

6. Agreed.

 

7. I think we might be speaking of different trailers. This is what I was talking about.

 

 

Are you willing to debunk chemistry connection to emotions and gambling addiction or are we in agreement of that?

[Jedishy 3,549]

7 minutes ago, Pentium100 said:

Which is why there should be no labels on food. You can always do a chemical analysis to figure out if it has lead or something that you are allergic to.

Anyway, in your ideal system, 80% of kids are taken away from their parents and raised by the State (or being a parent requires proving responsibility and getting a license). Because a lot of people are not perfect parents. Both the State and the "good" parents control every move of the children until they come of age and immediately become responsible for themselves. 

Less intelligent people (including old people and kids with "bad" parents) are there to be exploited in making a profit.

All kinds of drugs are not only legal, but advertised (hey, kids, meth is awesome!).

By the way, in your opinion, should poor people get welfare from the State or should they be left alone to turn to crime or just starve to death? Or maybe crime should be a good way to earn money? I mean if someone can beat you up and take your stuff, then you clearly were not responsible enough to defend against him.

Again a red herring  and false equivalency and twisting of what I said. 

1. I said that things that inherently hurt people are diff try again

2. I said either learn control or suffer the results. 

3. I believe drugs should be legal and that welfare should exist only in private charity not govt assistance. 

You can either beg to be a slave or accept that if you cant control your actions sometimes they have negative results that you either fix or live with. That is called being a grown up that has a sense of personal responsibility for your life and your kids. 

 

[Passion 3,489]

14 minutes ago, Pentium100 said:

Because a lot of people are not perfect parents.

You cannot really use that argument. Jedi has a point here.

It is true that majority of people are not ideal parents, however any mistakes they make are still on them. This plays into his statements and is valid. If you're not ideal parent and you make a mistake, you are responsible for this mistake.

The world is not making it easier for you, but let's face it. World never makes it easy to raise your kids. At no point in history.

[Pentium100 2,296]

Well, I guess you do not see any middle ground. It's either "be responsible and people who are not responsible should die" or live in a system that makes North Korea look liberal by comparison.

In my opinion there is a whole spectrum between those two extremes and I kinda know where I would like to be on that spectrum, which is somewhere near the middle.

@Passion the problem is that people are not isolated from each other. Even if I don't care that someone is made bankrupt on an emotional level, I have to care about him on a practical level. If someone has no money, they may need welfare (which costs me money as tax) or turn to crime (meaning they may kill me and take my money). I would rather see that person as a productive member or society despite his flaws rather than a burden on society or a criminal.

By the way, IMO, welfare is absolutely needed, because when a person is starving, they become violent. Get enough of such people with nothing to lose and you get a revolution. You have to give them enough so they have something to lose.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Pentium100

[Jedishy 3,549]

5 minutes ago, Passion said:

1. Rather than trying to tell me what I am thinking based on very scarce data you are provided with I'd very much more want you to focus just on points and counterpoints of examples we are discussing.

2. On what basis are you making that claim? I am assuming that, since you've made it, you can support it with something to prove its truth.

What other option is there? You want to regulate what people can buy because people make bad choices. You want to take away choice via force because some people choose to be fools. Sorry nah that is giving up liberty in the name of safety. Control or suffer the results. its that easy. Advocating for less is liberty for fake safety. 

6 minutes ago, Passion said:

Now, to move to your example. Can you provide me with shady and immoral practices which skateboard maker, social media site and owner of the land use to manipulate you into developing skateboarding addiction?

 

Cute shady by whose standards. Immoral by what standards. Oh wait your own? So you want YOUR morals to be forced on others? 
Oh but the land owner is a mall. They want kids there to buy things so they intice kids there via advertisement. So do skateboard companies try to get kids to buy things with cool videos of people doing tricks cant you see how its both of their fault for tricking poor kids into going to their property and emulating what they saw in a skate video? 

9 minutes ago, Passion said:

Of course, you will say that the latter is the parent's fault, and I will vastly agree. But I do not feel your quest for freedom and liberty should be achieved by giving corporations free hand to do whatever they please, including development of unhealthy habits not only in kids, but also teenagers and adult people alike. Because diversity is a thing, and not everyone is as resilent to company BS as you or me are.

They do not develop anything in kids. Parents are the ones doing the enabling and adults should know better or get help. If they cant then they live with the results its that simple. Personal choices should have personal impact and other people should not suffer the results of others bad decisions. That is as smart as saying YOU cant have fast food cause I chose to over eat and become obese. So tell me more about addiction I fought off early stages of alcoholism in the military and turned to food addiction as my next crutch and fight that even now. The thing I dont do is hold others accountable for my poor life choices 

11 minutes ago, Passion said:

Still, since you are appealing to the extremes, can you tell me why the government isn't regulating our food already by now? What stops them?

 

They are. The sale of alcohol powder that would let me turn any drink alcoholic was banned in the us for fears morons would abuse it. source

NYC soda size ban
Need I go on. Slipper slope is a thing in the law and its death by 1000 cuts people are just not seeing that reality because it happens so slowly. 

 

14 minutes ago, Passion said:

And there are families with people who are even less capable of it, or have never even used a computer to this day. To some of them, doing this might be just about as hard as learning the hardest imaginable language for themselves. So while it's great and commendable your parents were able to pull it off, you should understand that not every person is as capable as they are.

 

Then dont give your kids the ability to buy. Its that simple. If you cant be bothered to learn to use the tools or just cant figure them out then dont give your kid the ability to buy things online. That is not hard at ALL. You keep giving your kid $$ when you know they are blowing it and on top of that fail to get them help for said addiction then its on your head. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Pentium100 said:

Well, I guess you do not see any middle ground. It's either "be responsible and people who are not responsible should die" or live in a system that makes North Korea look liberal by comparison.

In my opinion there is a whole spectrum between those two extremes and I kinda know where I would like to be on that spectrum, which is somewhere near the middle.

If a person chooses to play a game like Russian roulette whose fault is it when things go sideways? If they are warned of the risk and keep playing the end result is on their head. No I dont see a middle ground because I know how the law works unlike most and that means that the second you start trading liberty because you are too lazy to be responsible for yourself you start cutting down liberty for those of us that chose to take a personal hand in our own lives rather then beg others to do it for us 

19 minutes ago, Passion said:

19 minutes ago, Passion said:

I think we might be speaking of different trailers.

 

Saw nothing in there that shows a game that is not ok for a kid that age to play. 

[Pentium100 2,296]

Just now, Jedishy said:

If a person chooses to play a game like Russian roulette whose fault is it when things go sideways?

If a person who lost all of his money in a casino and is now starving is beating you to death (to take your money) I am sure it would feel nice knowing where to assign the blame.

 

I, for example, would like to not be beaten to death, no matter who would get the blame for it

 

Maybe we should kill all the poor people then?.

 

[Jedishy 3,549]

4 minutes ago, Pentium100 said:

If a person who lost all of his money in a casino and is now starving is beating you to death (to take your money) I am sure it would feel nice knowing where to assign the blame.

 

I, for example, would like to not be beaten to death, no matter who would get the blame for it

 

Maybe we should kill all the poor people then?.

That is why I am a fan of personal charity and the second amendment. I am for helping people via CHOICE and not govt force. And for those that would force you to pay for their bad decisions well that is why I believe in personal defense tools.  

EDIT 
or should we in your mind ban all bad decisions? Or wait maybe make it so no matter what you do everyone else has to pay for it and bail you out? Why have liberty or personal accountability at all am I right? 

 

[Passion 3,489]

5 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

1. What other option is there? You want to regulate what people can buy because people make bad choices. You want to take away choice via force because some people choose to be fools. Sorry nah that is giving up liberty in the name of safety. Control or suffer the results. its that easy. Advocating for less is liberty for fake safety.

2. Cute shady by whose standards. Immoral by what standards. Oh wait your own? So you want YOUR morals to be forced on others?

3. Oh but the land owner is a mall. They want kids there to buy things so they intice kids there via advertisement. So do skateboard companies try to get kids to buy things with cool videos of people doing tricks cant you see how its both of their fault for tricking poor kids into going to their property and emulating what they saw in a skate video? 

4. They do not develop anything in kids.

5. Parents are the ones doing the enabling and adults should know better or get help. If they cant then they live with the results its that simple. Personal choices should have personal impact and other people should not suffer the results of others bad decisions. That is as smart as saying YOU cant have fast food cause I chose to over eat and become obese. So tell me more about addiction I fought off early stages of alcoholism in the military and turned to food addiction as my next crutch and fight that even now. The thing I dont do is hold others accountable for my poor life choices 

 

6. They are. The sale of alcohol powder that would let me turn any drink alcoholic was banned in the us for fears morons would abuse it. source

NYC soda size ban
Need I go on. Slipper slope is a thing in the law and its death by 1000 cuts people are just not seeing that reality because it happens so slowly. 

 

7. Then dont give your kids the ability to buy. Its that simple. If you cant be bothered to learn to use the tools or just cant figure them out then dont give your kid the ability to buy things online. That is not hard at ALL. You keep giving your kid $$ when you know they are blowing it and on top of that fail to get them help for said addiction then its on your head.

1. Wrong. This is not black or white. Have them free or remove them completely, no. I voted for lootbox removal because this is what I'd love to see, since I remember times when they were not here. But it is impossible nowadays anymore. What I'd love to achieve realistically is lootboxes implemented in games with true neutrality as optional purchase, with full clarification on chances of which rewards can be earned but without the design dictated by psychological approach of exploitation of weaknesses of human mind.

Heroes of the Storm comes to mind as example, as even though it is flashy, this is the only thing that happens in the game that coerces you in anyway to buy lootboxes.

 

2. Mine. But also a number of independent YT self-proclaimed journalists (they are people too), vast majority of gaming community as seen across the internet comments in various areas of internet and implied UK Gambling Commission doubts (although they eventually decided lootboxes are not gambling due to the nature the laws are constructed nowadays, they certainly did raise heavy doubts about moral standards of their execution). It is painfully obvious these solutions will be moral for corporations, it is very clear to see what's their motive after all, cash. Enormous amounts of cash are on the table.

Then again, morals are a subjective matter from person to person is what you're aiming at and should not be used as argumentation I guess. Let's just slip into complete depravation because at the end of the day every moral is subjective.

 

3. Once I see a law that would enable this to happen to be acknowledged, I will also acknowledge this argument. For now, let's leave it in ether because it's just spinning purely theoretical situations which would require entitlement to be legalized as a valid court argumentation heh.

 

4. Lootbox introduction. Gambling connections. The article says its all.

 

5. Yet we do suffer results of poor choices of other people on a daily basis, be it at work or home alike, whether we like it or not. When your kid comes back home and starts arguing with you why his friend can do x (which for the need of the case we will assume is in some way wrong) but he cannot, your are the parent suffering the consequences of decision of another parent about what their kid can do. And this makes enforcing bans a bit harder than it looks like without raising the kid to be at odds with you. I have a feeling we do not give enough attention to the wider aspects of the issue of banning access under kid-parent interaction to different services and tools, but this spectrum is so wide and full of various outside factors that it is hard to establish a golden code of conduct.

I agree, parents should do everything in their might to ensure their kid does not do something stupid. Sadly, it is not always possible.

In fact, I've made a few poor choices in my life myself. They caused heavy distress to my mom. And what she did? She complained to my brothers. And then they had to talk with me. Ergo, they suffered consequences of my own individual deed as part of family.

 

6. I'll leave that one be. Not because I do not believe it does not exist, I am certain you are sure here because it's logically viable. But I am not convinced enough to believe that based purely on that nothing should be done about the addiction developing practices of companies and corporations.

 

7. Pretty much point 5 I guess. We have a consensus here that responsibility heavily lies on shoulders of parents. I will not say completely, as parents are not the whole world of a child and then a teen, but it is indeed a heavy burden.

[Jedishy 3,549]

17 minutes ago, Passion said:

But it is impossible nowadays anymore.

Wrong its just stop buying them. See you think you have a right to tell others how to live via force. If people really hate them then lets stop buying them. But that would be haaaard right? 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Passion said:

Then again, morals are a subjective matter from person to person is what you're aiming at and should not be used as argumentation I guess. Let's just slip into complete depravation because at the end of the day every moral is subjective.

 

Oh fun thats the same thing that was said when it became legal for my and my BF to hold hand in the streets. Maybe we should go back to the McCarthy era black lists too? Or maybe we should be for people accepting the results of their own failures? 

 

 

19 minutes ago, Passion said:

Once I see a law that would enable this to happen to be acknowledged, I will also acknowledge this argument.

Enables what. You are talking to someone whose degree is in the legal field so which is why I am so against legislation whenever and wherever possible. Because unlike most I know its dangers and believe we are humans not cattle to be controlled by a master. 

20 minutes ago, Passion said:

I agree, parents should do everything in their might to ensure their kid does not do something stupid. Sadly, it is not always possible.

 

Its always possible to ensure your kid does not buy loot boxes. Its always possible to ensure your kid is the only one that actually pays for their choice. No one HAS to talk to them about it but the parent and emotions do not count as paying a price. Thats a nice  aside but that is not what we were talking about and you know it. 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Passion said:

6. I'll leave that one be. Not because I do not believe it does not exist, I am certain you are sure here because it's logically viable. But I am not convinced enough to believe that based purely on that nothing should be done about the addiction developing practices of companies and corporations.

 

LOL yea this shows my point. Its no risk I mean we can only use the law to chart the slow death of liberty via even just choices in what we consume 

Smoking is bad it needs to be labeled. 
Govt should discourage smoking its a health risk lets ban it in particular areas and oh lets tax it more too 
Govt is responsible to keep us from health risks cause it provides some forms of health care lets ban soda of particular sizes and dictate the food choices of welfare recipients purchases. 

How many steps until its govt is responsible to ensure we eat healthy by govt mandated diets? The steps on the slope are there and people keep begging to add grease. 

[Celli 4,349]

The issue is that companies like EA, Activision, etc, target whales first and foremost. i.e, people who have bottomless wallets and spend thousands on them. And in the end, ruin it for the majority of consumers who just buy a game and don't really ever spend more than the asking price. And microtransactions, loot boxes, etc are always bad because they rip content that should be in the game to begin with and sell it back for extra.And they usually make getting in game stuff a grind so you're more incentivised to cough up a few extra dollars here and there. It's sickening and EA should be ashamed for taking advantage of people like this. Boycotting only goes so far when there are people with a lot of disposable income who keep allowing this shit to happen. It's why I hope the Triple A industry collapses under the weight of it's greed and these greedy corporations go out of business. The only games that give you a full experience these days are indies and Double A games.

[Pentium100 2,296]

3 hours ago, Jedishy said:

Wrong its just stop buying them.

That's weird. I have never bought a loot box or a game with loot boxes. Yet,not only the loot boxes were created, they are put in more games than ever. And yet, I cannot buy less than zero.

I also have never done drugs. And yet there are addicts on the street for some reason.

It's as if my choices have no force. Maybe if I bombed or shot up the office of some company they would listen... Hey, maybe that's why mass shootings happen in the US all the time?

4 hours ago, Jedishy said:

The steps on the slope are there and people keep begging to add grease. 

It looks tome that you ignore the possibility of collective action. Or that someone always forces choice on someone else. 

For example, I do not want to work in a smoke-filled office wearing a as mask all day long. I alone cannot really do anything about that - well, I can quit, but if all offices are full of smoke, I would not be able to work anywhere. My choice was taken away from me by smokers - if I want to work, I have to endure the smoke. So, instead I may find other people who also dislike having to breathe smoke all the time, we could band together and petition the government for a ban on smoking inside (or elect a government that promises to do this). If there are enough of us, we actually may be able for force the smokers to instead go outside for a smoke.

Individuals have no power against groups or against large companies. I may never buy a game with loot boxes and yet, all games may start having loot boxes, which would reduce my choice of a new game to zero. The company does not care that it did not receive 50EUR from me, when it can receive 100EUR from someone else.

5 hours ago, Jedishy said:

That is why I am a fan of personal charity and the second amendment. I am for helping people via CHOICE and not govt force.

Awesome. So, I take it that you personally do not want to pay tax that goes into welfare, but would like others to do it for you. Because if not enough people do it, you better hire a body guard (you will probably pay him more than you would in the welfare tax but whatever).

Government force in democratic countries IS choice. A choice made by a lot of people who all agreed that a things needs to be done, so they elected the government that promised to do that thing. And yes, that choice is forced on the rest of the people, but someone is always forcing choice to someone else.

You say it's all about choice, but it is not possible to have all the options. For example, if there are more criminals on the streets because of your "personal responsibility" system where there is absolutely no government protection and drugs are legal, my choice to go somewhere without a bodyguard and/or a gun is taken away. So, why do you want to take away my choice?

If all games have loot boxes in them, my choice to buy a game without loot boxes is taken away.

If smoking is permitted everywhere, my choice to not breathe in the smoke while being inside any building other than my home is taken away.

 

But, you want labels on food and things that are "inherently dangerous". Why? Isn't it my choice to buy an inherently dangerous thing? A TV that's prone to catching fire would probably be cheaper and if I use it responsibly (never leave it plugged in without someone in the room, always have fire extinguishers ready, not keep flammable objects near it) I would not have problems even if it does catch fire Or maybe I can buy it and the modify it so that it does not catch fire? 

Why can't I buy a new car that does not have all of the modern crap in it (airbags, fuel injection, computers, very easily bendable body)? It would be cheaper to maintain, maybe even cheaper to buy and would last longer. Now if I want a simple car like that I have to use one that's old and needs patching of rust holes every once in a while.

 

2 minutes ago, Celli said:

It's sickening and EA should be ashamed for taking advantage of people like this. Boycotting only goes so far when there are people with a lot of disposable income who keep allowing this shit to happen.

Yes, and because of that, my choice of playing a basketball game that does not have gambling in it is taken away.

3 minutes ago, Celli said:

It's why I hope the Triple A industry collapses under the weight of it's greed and these greedy corporations go out of business

Yea, hopefully it happens soon.

[Jeric 46,880]

Do loot boxes suck? Yes. Am I opposed to legislation preventing loot boxes being marketed to minors? No. Am I opposed to a ban? You are damn right I am. Let the market dictate the companies course of action. Most things I see on the internet about this seem unified in their disdain for loot boxes and micro transactions, yet they are still making the companies mad cash. If sales and adoption rates bottomed out because of loot boxes then absolutely they would change tactics. That hasn’t been the case. People hate them, but whales are still on board for that sweet sweet advantage. 

[Pentium100 2,296]

Just now, Jeric said:

Do loot boxes suck? Yes. Am I opposed to legislation preventing loot boxes being marketed to minors? No. Am I opposed to a ban? You are damn right I am.

Yea. I dislike double standards. So, loot boxes should be regulated the same as slot machines. Not banned, but not accessible to minors.

[Envy 6,379]

I could easily see these destroying gaming. I am for any effort - including from governments - to ban them. It is a completely disgusting, greedy, damaging practice that needs to go ASAP.

What really gets me about these "microtransactions" is the ones I have seen have never actually been "micro" in any, way, shape or form. Like I used to play Kingdom Hearts Union Cross (unfortunately) and for a single RNG pull, it cost like $20. Of course, I never bought one, but there are people that did (and have spent thousands and thousands of dollars. Yes, I mean individuals spent thousands and thousands of dollars. I remember there being a medal in 2016 that costed something like over a thousand dollars to be able to get... And people had that medal.). And eventually the game came to a point where you had to pay to have any chance of competing in it and that was when I dropped it. They couldn't string me along any further.