Telwyn.1630 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > @"Telwyn.1630" said: > > when ever I do get keys I and open chests I just sell the stuff or unlock the mini's, dyes, now if the black lions boxes are force to banned from the game I just sell mine. > > Really, I persist in saying that the Belgium is case is due to Unlicensed gambling being banned, this doesn't affect the US, the US have broader, lax gambling regulations, lootboxes arent at a risk of being banned. What they want is for them to be more transparent and less available to underrage teens Plus its easy to get keys as well I do not have to spend gems on keys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann.1946 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > Their have been posters who want to ban them tho. Just a minor correction. > > > > > > Indeed, but that's not what the bill itself is about, therefore those posters are not actually properly informed. > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > It doesn't affect me. Its no different then if i went and drank water to the point at which I drowned. Should we regulate how much water we give out because I went and did that? Think about my family members? Maybe we should card people to buy water or perhaps tell them that they cant buy more then 1 gallon at a time? No its ridiculous. > > > > > > > > Here's an even better analogy. Video games are addictive just in general. I've decided to play a video game 21 hrs a day 7 days a week. My family is devastated. I believe we should regulate the amount of hours that ANY person can play on all mmo's because i PERSONALLY have no self control and refuse to get any. Instead we need a blanket law that will simply not let anyone log into any mmo for more then 2hrs per day. Think about my family and children? Should we regulate this way? I don't think so... > > > > > > > > Only in this case of regulation of loot boxes it will ban it. They shut numerous Gatcha games down in Belgium and people lost their entire accounts. There were tons of other games that couldn't make up the revenue and simply closed down in protest and again more people lost their enjoyment and accounts all in the name of protecting children whom aren't supervised. Gw2 stopped selling black lion chests, and never replaced it with anything and I'm sure its sales were permanently diminished in Belgium, if they do that here it might be enough to close down the game. > > > > > > A regulation is an Oversight. Something that checks on it, makes sure it follows clear rules. How is that preventing anyone who enjoy this as a past time to continue enjoying it ? Really I do not understand it. Regulation gives you more information about something you partake in. > > > > > > Belgium did not shut those games down, companies themselves refused to regulate and provide the oversight needed for the government to check on them, and Simply closed their services On their own. Not to mention some of those companies actually used the outrage generated and redirected them to the legislation using those very misinterpretations you're using : "They're banning it, we aren't". That was never the case : Companies actually stopped their services before the law was even put in place. Actually I think you're being confused because Belgium specifically banned lootboxes. Belgium actually **bans unlicensed gambling outright**, the only thing it ruled out, was that lootboxes were gambling, which you yourself recognize they are, and pretty much everyone under the sun does. The US **doesn't ban gambling**, therefore lootboxes arent actually at risk of being banned, all that's going to happen is that regulation applied to gambling **-currently, at this very instant-** could Apply to lootboxes. It doesn't state it intend to ban them, at all. Belgium did not ban lootboxes at random, it had Already banned gambling, it Simply ruled, like everyone else, that lootboxes were gambling, and thus it fell Under the same regulation. Belgium is not anti video game. > > > > > > Another thing you clearly dont understand is that black lion chests dont represent a large part of revenue for Guild wars 2 compared to mount skins, outfits, armor skins in general : People farm keys, it's such a common practice it's even recommended to new players. Those that dont farm in such a way buy the keys with gold, which doesn't generate gem revenue for Anet either. The people who spend gems on keys are a minority. That's nowhere near enough to shut down the game, you're overreacting. > > > > > > Here, let me give you an actual example of already implemented self regulation : Nexon owns a game called Mabinogi who is known for it's heavy indulgence on gachapons (so lootboxes). Until recently, they didn't display the percents of rate of acquisition of each individual item in those gachas. When legislations started to show interest in Hawaii, they started to put percents on all their gachas. It didn't stop people buying them, in fact it didn't change much of anything, the difference was that now the rates are clearly expressed in put in Numbers, it's a form of self regulation, but regulation regardless. Did it spell the end of gachapons for that game ? Absolutely not. Did it cave it's earnings ? It's too soon to say, but judging by the market of items acquired from those boxes, being sold by players, the rates are similar to how they were before percents were introduced. What changed however is that players -greatly- appreciated to know what they were paying for, and what their chances realistically are. It also put that specific company much closer to being given a pass, than a company who continues obscuring it's rates. > > > > > > What I'm trying to explain to you is that when a problem becomes endemic enough to be recognized and acknowledged, you need a structure to oversee, monitor and regulate it to avoid it spinning out of control. Currently, there is no such thing, but everyone agrees that gambling rates, particularly amongst the youngests have increased over many years. Something need to check on it, just like any evolving problem, and the industry is Not taking care of it. > > > > > > **TLDR : Belgium requires that you own a gambling license to perform gambling services, Under it's recognition that Lootboxes are gambling, it required that game companies acquire such a license to continue selling their lootboxes within the law, the gaming companies refused and pulled their services to avoid being fined for Unlicensed gambling** > > > > Only in Belgium this did shut down Gatcha's and people lost all their accounts and money/time put into the game. I don't think lootboxes or gatcha's (while they involve RNG which is a Gamble in essence as is many other things in life), are a gamble in the traditional legal sense that you would see in a casino which has regulations. The only reason Casino's are regulated is because money is exchanged both ways and while it is entertainment the reality is that those laws aren't really there to protect and regulate the customer they are there so the government gets its share of the profits. The payout of the gamble with lootboxes has no monetary value (sure you could illegally sell your account, but there is no official way to exchange it for money). its only real value is entertainment, just like logging into GW2 , there's no guarantee that mob will give you a precursor when you kill it, but if it does - wow that was fun. If it doesn't should we call for regulation? > > > > Sorry I'd rather have less laws then more, its optional entertainment and doesn't need to be regulated as its not like traditional gambling. > > Sorry, but I have to correct that again, you're Factually Wrong. People did not lose their accounts, or money, or time. Games have not been banned. Sale of a product within that game have been. Guild wars 2 players from Belgium can certify, they can still play, their account is still intact, what they acquired, even through black lion chests before, is still theirs. > > As for the rest of your argument, I wont bother trying to explain facts and sense to a wall. Regardless of the argument, this is not my country. What you want is what you want. What the situation needs is what the situation needs. It ends there. I'm not going to be voting for that law, I'm not an US Citizen. All I can add are established facts, and examples. Past that, it is of literally no concerns to me. > > You still disappoint in term of debate : I expected better than a "Because I dont wanna" and factually wrong deformation of what other stated (You still persist with lootbags when it has been debunked Numerous times that doesn't actually falls into lootbox territory). At this point you're either doing this on purpose, or cannot get out of your loop, either way, I have better things to do than to repeat what I and others have explained, numerous times. Believe what you will. > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > Their have been posters who want to ban them tho. Just a minor correction. > > > > > > Indeed, but that's not what the bill itself is about, therefore those posters are not actually properly informed. > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > It doesn't affect me. Its no different then if i went and drank water to the point at which I drowned. Should we regulate how much water we give out because I went and did that? Think about my family members? Maybe we should card people to buy water or perhaps tell them that they cant buy more then 1 gallon at a time? No its ridiculous. > > > > > > > > Here's an even better analogy. Video games are addictive just in general. I've decided to play a video game 21 hrs a day 7 days a week. My family is devastated. I believe we should regulate the amount of hours that ANY person can play on all mmo's because i PERSONALLY have no self control and refuse to get any. Instead we need a blanket law that will simply not let anyone log into any mmo for more then 2hrs per day. Think about my family and children? Should we regulate this way? I don't think so... > > > > > > > > Only in this case of regulation of loot boxes it will ban it. They shut numerous Gatcha games down in Belgium and people lost their entire accounts. There were tons of other games that couldn't make up the revenue and simply closed down in protest and again more people lost their enjoyment and accounts all in the name of protecting children whom aren't supervised. Gw2 stopped selling black lion chests, and never replaced it with anything and I'm sure its sales were permanently diminished in Belgium, if they do that here it might be enough to close down the game. > > > > > > A regulation is an Oversight. Something that checks on it, makes sure it follows clear rules. How is that preventing anyone who enjoy this as a past time to continue enjoying it ? Really I do not understand it. Regulation gives you more information about something you partake in. > > > > > > Belgium did not shut those games down, companies themselves refused to regulate and provide the oversight needed for the government to check on them, and Simply closed their services On their own. Not to mention some of those companies actually used the outrage generated and redirected them to the legislation using those very misinterpretations you're using : "They're banning it, we aren't". That was never the case : Companies actually stopped their services before the law was even put in place. Actually I think you're being confused because Belgium specifically banned lootboxes. Belgium actually **bans unlicensed gambling outright**, the only thing it ruled out, was that lootboxes were gambling, which you yourself recognize they are, and pretty much everyone under the sun does. The US **doesn't ban gambling**, therefore lootboxes arent actually at risk of being banned, all that's going to happen is that regulation applied to gambling **-currently, at this very instant-** could Apply to lootboxes. It doesn't state it intend to ban them, at all. Belgium did not ban lootboxes at random, it had Already banned gambling, it Simply ruled, like everyone else, that lootboxes were gambling, and thus it fell Under the same regulation. Belgium is not anti video game. > > > > > > Another thing you clearly dont understand is that black lion chests dont represent a large part of revenue for Guild wars 2 compared to mount skins, outfits, armor skins in general : People farm keys, it's such a common practice it's even recommended to new players. Those that dont farm in such a way buy the keys with gold, which doesn't generate gem revenue for Anet either. The people who spend gems on keys are a minority. That's nowhere near enough to shut down the game, you're overreacting. > > > > > > Here, let me give you an actual example of already implemented self regulation : Nexon owns a game called Mabinogi who is known for it's heavy indulgence on gachapons (so lootboxes). Until recently, they didn't display the percents of rate of acquisition of each individual item in those gachas. When legislations started to show interest in Hawaii, they started to put percents on all their gachas. It didn't stop people buying them, in fact it didn't change much of anything, the difference was that now the rates are clearly expressed in put in Numbers, it's a form of self regulation, but regulation regardless. Did it spell the end of gachapons for that game ? Absolutely not. Did it cave it's earnings ? It's too soon to say, but judging by the market of items acquired from those boxes, being sold by players, the rates are similar to how they were before percents were introduced. What changed however is that players -greatly- appreciated to know what they were paying for, and what their chances realistically are. It also put that specific company much closer to being given a pass, than a company who continues obscuring it's rates. > > > > > > What I'm trying to explain to you is that when a problem becomes endemic enough to be recognized and acknowledged, you need a structure to oversee, monitor and regulate it to avoid it spinning out of control. Currently, there is no such thing, but everyone agrees that gambling rates, particularly amongst the youngests have increased over many years. Something need to check on it, just like any evolving problem, and the industry is Not taking care of it. > > > > > > **TLDR : Belgium requires that you own a gambling license to perform gambling services, Under it's recognition that Lootboxes are gambling, it required that game companies acquire such a license to continue selling their lootboxes within the law, the gaming companies refused and pulled their services to avoid being fined for Unlicensed gambling** > > > > > Sure but this has become a debate about lootboxes in general not only the regulation. > > > > On the quote that gambling has increased do you have a source for that? I've only found that their is a correlation between gambling problems and lootboxes. Not in which direction this correlation goes > > I crossed references between NAFGAH and NCPG websites and reports, as well as articles who quoted those two organisations in particular. Some of it date back to 2016 mind, but in term of statistics, that's still fairly solid material. NAFGAH actually had a piece that compared rates of problem gambling compared to other countries in a similar position, the US apparently ranks fairly high up there. None in particular shows any graphs though, which is what I was really trying to find, and am surprised not to find, usually any such evolution is accurately graphed, but I cant find anything recent, or refering to a year by year progression. To be fair, those reference gambling addiction in General. Lootbox themselves, I simply extrapolated from the politics themselves, which true enough dont share their sources. I Believe it was mentionned during an hearing when the Hawaii governor first tried to tackle the issue with the gaming industry representatives. I do find studies, but they're by the UK government's Gambling commission, so they study their own population, the rise is sharp however : https://www.ft.com/content/7044b142-7313-11e8-aa31-31da4279a601 Even if it doesnt show 2018 and 2019, I seriously doubt the trend would suddenly abate and take a nosedive. > > This shows an excerpt from the Journal of Gambling Studies, which I -think- is US based ? https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Challenge-of-Online-Gambling%3A-The-Effect-of-on-Chóliz/1a3b5d920cd0b3789917ca39b0459cc651b9f1d7 It's older, and stop graphing at 2015, but still shows that upward trend. Lootboxes however still do not appear as a specific item of it, probably because the spotlight was shown more recently. I'd say, studies on -lootboxes- specifically haven't been concluded. Studies on gambling though, there are so here and there, not all of them public though it seems. Thank you, I will check these out ones I can. I'm not from the US so any number should bu fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > Their have been posters who want to ban them tho. Just a minor correction. > > > > > > Indeed, but that's not what the bill itself is about, therefore those posters are not actually properly informed. > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > It doesn't affect me. Its no different then if i went and drank water to the point at which I drowned. Should we regulate how much water we give out because I went and did that? Think about my family members? Maybe we should card people to buy water or perhaps tell them that they cant buy more then 1 gallon at a time? No its ridiculous. > > > > > > > > Here's an even better analogy. Video games are addictive just in general. I've decided to play a video game 21 hrs a day 7 days a week. My family is devastated. I believe we should regulate the amount of hours that ANY person can play on all mmo's because i PERSONALLY have no self control and refuse to get any. Instead we need a blanket law that will simply not let anyone log into any mmo for more then 2hrs per day. Think about my family and children? Should we regulate this way? I don't think so... > > > > > > > > Only in this case of regulation of loot boxes it will ban it. They shut numerous Gatcha games down in Belgium and people lost their entire accounts. There were tons of other games that couldn't make up the revenue and simply closed down in protest and again more people lost their enjoyment and accounts all in the name of protecting children whom aren't supervised. Gw2 stopped selling black lion chests, and never replaced it with anything and I'm sure its sales were permanently diminished in Belgium, if they do that here it might be enough to close down the game. > > > > > > A regulation is an Oversight. Something that checks on it, makes sure it follows clear rules. How is that preventing anyone who enjoy this as a past time to continue enjoying it ? Really I do not understand it. Regulation gives you more information about something you partake in. > > > > > > Belgium did not shut those games down, companies themselves refused to regulate and provide the oversight needed for the government to check on them, and Simply closed their services On their own. Not to mention some of those companies actually used the outrage generated and redirected them to the legislation using those very misinterpretations you're using : "They're banning it, we aren't". That was never the case : Companies actually stopped their services before the law was even put in place. Actually I think you're being confused because Belgium specifically banned lootboxes. Belgium actually **bans unlicensed gambling outright**, the only thing it ruled out, was that lootboxes were gambling, which you yourself recognize they are, and pretty much everyone under the sun does. The US **doesn't ban gambling**, therefore lootboxes arent actually at risk of being banned, all that's going to happen is that regulation applied to gambling **-currently, at this very instant-** could Apply to lootboxes. It doesn't state it intend to ban them, at all. Belgium did not ban lootboxes at random, it had Already banned gambling, it Simply ruled, like everyone else, that lootboxes were gambling, and thus it fell Under the same regulation. Belgium is not anti video game. > > > > > > Another thing you clearly dont understand is that black lion chests dont represent a large part of revenue for Guild wars 2 compared to mount skins, outfits, armor skins in general : People farm keys, it's such a common practice it's even recommended to new players. Those that dont farm in such a way buy the keys with gold, which doesn't generate gem revenue for Anet either. The people who spend gems on keys are a minority. That's nowhere near enough to shut down the game, you're overreacting. > > > > > > Here, let me give you an actual example of already implemented self regulation : Nexon owns a game called Mabinogi who is known for it's heavy indulgence on gachapons (so lootboxes). Until recently, they didn't display the percents of rate of acquisition of each individual item in those gachas. When legislations started to show interest in Hawaii, they started to put percents on all their gachas. It didn't stop people buying them, in fact it didn't change much of anything, the difference was that now the rates are clearly expressed in put in Numbers, it's a form of self regulation, but regulation regardless. Did it spell the end of gachapons for that game ? Absolutely not. Did it cave it's earnings ? It's too soon to say, but judging by the market of items acquired from those boxes, being sold by players, the rates are similar to how they were before percents were introduced. What changed however is that players -greatly- appreciated to know what they were paying for, and what their chances realistically are. It also put that specific company much closer to being given a pass, than a company who continues obscuring it's rates. > > > > > > What I'm trying to explain to you is that when a problem becomes endemic enough to be recognized and acknowledged, you need a structure to oversee, monitor and regulate it to avoid it spinning out of control. Currently, there is no such thing, but everyone agrees that gambling rates, particularly amongst the youngests have increased over many years. Something need to check on it, just like any evolving problem, and the industry is Not taking care of it. > > > > > > **TLDR : Belgium requires that you own a gambling license to perform gambling services, Under it's recognition that Lootboxes are gambling, it required that game companies acquire such a license to continue selling their lootboxes within the law, the gaming companies refused and pulled their services to avoid being fined for Unlicensed gambling** > > > > Only in Belgium this did shut down Gatcha's and people lost all their accounts and money/time put into the game. I don't think lootboxes or gatcha's (while they involve RNG which is a Gamble in essence as is many other things in life), are a gamble in the traditional legal sense that you would see in a casino which has regulations. The only reason Casino's are regulated is because money is exchanged both ways and while it is entertainment the reality is that those laws aren't really there to protect and regulate the customer they are there so the government gets its share of the profits. The payout of the gamble with lootboxes has no monetary value (sure you could illegally sell your account, but there is no official way to exchange it for money). its only real value is entertainment, just like logging into GW2 , there's no guarantee that mob will give you a precursor when you kill it, but if it does - wow that was fun. If it doesn't should we call for regulation? > > > > Sorry I'd rather have less laws then more, its optional entertainment and doesn't need to be regulated as its not like traditional gambling. > > Sorry, but I have to correct that again, you're Factually Wrong. People did not lose their accounts, or money, or time. Games have not been banned. Sale of a product within that game have been. Guild wars 2 players from Belgium can certify, they can still play, their account is still intact, what they acquired, even through black lion chests before, is still theirs. > > As for the rest of your argument, I wont bother trying to explain facts and sense to a wall. Regardless of the argument, this is not my country. What you want is what you want. What the situation needs is what the situation needs. It ends there. I'm not going to be voting for that law, I'm not an US Citizen. All I can add are established facts, and examples. Past that, it is of literally no concerns to me. > > You still disappoint in term of debate : I expected better than a "Because I dont wanna" and factually wrong deformation of what other stated (You still persist with lootbags when it has been debunked Numerous times that doesn't actually falls into lootbox territory). At this point you're either doing this on purpose, or cannot get out of your loop, either way, I have better things to do than to repeat what I and others have explained, numerous times. Believe what you will. > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > Their have been posters who want to ban them tho. Just a minor correction. > > > > > > Indeed, but that's not what the bill itself is about, therefore those posters are not actually properly informed. > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > It doesn't affect me. Its no different then if i went and drank water to the point at which I drowned. Should we regulate how much water we give out because I went and did that? Think about my family members? Maybe we should card people to buy water or perhaps tell them that they cant buy more then 1 gallon at a time? No its ridiculous. > > > > > > > > Here's an even better analogy. Video games are addictive just in general. I've decided to play a video game 21 hrs a day 7 days a week. My family is devastated. I believe we should regulate the amount of hours that ANY person can play on all mmo's because i PERSONALLY have no self control and refuse to get any. Instead we need a blanket law that will simply not let anyone log into any mmo for more then 2hrs per day. Think about my family and children? Should we regulate this way? I don't think so... > > > > > > > > Only in this case of regulation of loot boxes it will ban it. They shut numerous Gatcha games down in Belgium and people lost their entire accounts. There were tons of other games that couldn't make up the revenue and simply closed down in protest and again more people lost their enjoyment and accounts all in the name of protecting children whom aren't supervised. Gw2 stopped selling black lion chests, and never replaced it with anything and I'm sure its sales were permanently diminished in Belgium, if they do that here it might be enough to close down the game. > > > > > > A regulation is an Oversight. Something that checks on it, makes sure it follows clear rules. How is that preventing anyone who enjoy this as a past time to continue enjoying it ? Really I do not understand it. Regulation gives you more information about something you partake in. > > > > > > Belgium did not shut those games down, companies themselves refused to regulate and provide the oversight needed for the government to check on them, and Simply closed their services On their own. Not to mention some of those companies actually used the outrage generated and redirected them to the legislation using those very misinterpretations you're using : "They're banning it, we aren't". That was never the case : Companies actually stopped their services before the law was even put in place. Actually I think you're being confused because Belgium specifically banned lootboxes. Belgium actually **bans unlicensed gambling outright**, the only thing it ruled out, was that lootboxes were gambling, which you yourself recognize they are, and pretty much everyone under the sun does. The US **doesn't ban gambling**, therefore lootboxes arent actually at risk of being banned, all that's going to happen is that regulation applied to gambling **-currently, at this very instant-** could Apply to lootboxes. It doesn't state it intend to ban them, at all. Belgium did not ban lootboxes at random, it had Already banned gambling, it Simply ruled, like everyone else, that lootboxes were gambling, and thus it fell Under the same regulation. Belgium is not anti video game. > > > > > > Another thing you clearly dont understand is that black lion chests dont represent a large part of revenue for Guild wars 2 compared to mount skins, outfits, armor skins in general : People farm keys, it's such a common practice it's even recommended to new players. Those that dont farm in such a way buy the keys with gold, which doesn't generate gem revenue for Anet either. The people who spend gems on keys are a minority. That's nowhere near enough to shut down the game, you're overreacting. > > > > > > Here, let me give you an actual example of already implemented self regulation : Nexon owns a game called Mabinogi who is known for it's heavy indulgence on gachapons (so lootboxes). Until recently, they didn't display the percents of rate of acquisition of each individual item in those gachas. When legislations started to show interest in Hawaii, they started to put percents on all their gachas. It didn't stop people buying them, in fact it didn't change much of anything, the difference was that now the rates are clearly expressed in put in Numbers, it's a form of self regulation, but regulation regardless. Did it spell the end of gachapons for that game ? Absolutely not. Did it cave it's earnings ? It's too soon to say, but judging by the market of items acquired from those boxes, being sold by players, the rates are similar to how they were before percents were introduced. What changed however is that players -greatly- appreciated to know what they were paying for, and what their chances realistically are. It also put that specific company much closer to being given a pass, than a company who continues obscuring it's rates. > > > > > > What I'm trying to explain to you is that when a problem becomes endemic enough to be recognized and acknowledged, you need a structure to oversee, monitor and regulate it to avoid it spinning out of control. Currently, there is no such thing, but everyone agrees that gambling rates, particularly amongst the youngests have increased over many years. Something need to check on it, just like any evolving problem, and the industry is Not taking care of it. > > > > > > **TLDR : Belgium requires that you own a gambling license to perform gambling services, Under it's recognition that Lootboxes are gambling, it required that game companies acquire such a license to continue selling their lootboxes within the law, the gaming companies refused and pulled their services to avoid being fined for Unlicensed gambling** > > > > > Sure but this has become a debate about lootboxes in general not only the regulation. > > > > On the quote that gambling has increased do you have a source for that? I've only found that their is a correlation between gambling problems and lootboxes. Not in which direction this correlation goes > > I crossed references between NAFGAH and NCPG websites and reports, as well as articles who quoted those two organisations in particular. Some of it date back to 2016 mind, but in term of statistics, that's still fairly solid material. NAFGAH actually had a piece that compared rates of problem gambling compared to other countries in a similar position, the US apparently ranks fairly high up there. None in particular shows any graphs though, which is what I was really trying to find, and am surprised not to find, usually any such evolution is accurately graphed, but I cant find anything recent, or refering to a year by year progression. To be fair, those reference gambling addiction in General. Lootbox themselves, I simply extrapolated from the politics themselves, which true enough dont share their sources. I Believe it was mentionned during an hearing when the Hawaii governor first tried to tackle the issue with the gaming industry representatives. I do find studies, but they're by the UK government's Gambling commission, so they study their own population, the rise is sharp however : https://www.ft.com/content/7044b142-7313-11e8-aa31-31da4279a601 Even if it doesnt show 2018 and 2019, I seriously doubt the trend would suddenly abate and take a nosedive. > > This shows an excerpt from the Journal of Gambling Studies, which I -think- is US based ? https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Challenge-of-Online-Gambling%3A-The-Effect-of-on-Chóliz/1a3b5d920cd0b3789917ca39b0459cc651b9f1d7 It's older, and stop graphing at 2015, but still shows that upward trend. Lootboxes however still do not appear as a specific item of it, probably because the spotlight was shown more recently. I'd say, studies on -lootboxes- specifically haven't been concluded. Studies on gambling though, there are so here and there, not all of them public though it seems. Oh really games werent shut down due to ridiculous regulations? https://tay.kinja.com/final-fantasy-brave-exvius-and-other-mobile-games-to-en-1830199770 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naxos.2503 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > > > Their have been posters who want to ban them tho. Just a minor correction. > > > > > > > > Indeed, but that's not what the bill itself is about, therefore those posters are not actually properly informed. > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't affect me. Its no different then if i went and drank water to the point at which I drowned. Should we regulate how much water we give out because I went and did that? Think about my family members? Maybe we should card people to buy water or perhaps tell them that they cant buy more then 1 gallon at a time? No its ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > > Here's an even better analogy. Video games are addictive just in general. I've decided to play a video game 21 hrs a day 7 days a week. My family is devastated. I believe we should regulate the amount of hours that ANY person can play on all mmo's because i PERSONALLY have no self control and refuse to get any. Instead we need a blanket law that will simply not let anyone log into any mmo for more then 2hrs per day. Think about my family and children? Should we regulate this way? I don't think so... > > > > > > > > > > Only in this case of regulation of loot boxes it will ban it. They shut numerous Gatcha games down in Belgium and people lost their entire accounts. There were tons of other games that couldn't make up the revenue and simply closed down in protest and again more people lost their enjoyment and accounts all in the name of protecting children whom aren't supervised. Gw2 stopped selling black lion chests, and never replaced it with anything and I'm sure its sales were permanently diminished in Belgium, if they do that here it might be enough to close down the game. > > > > > > > > A regulation is an Oversight. Something that checks on it, makes sure it follows clear rules. How is that preventing anyone who enjoy this as a past time to continue enjoying it ? Really I do not understand it. Regulation gives you more information about something you partake in. > > > > > > > > Belgium did not shut those games down, companies themselves refused to regulate and provide the oversight needed for the government to check on them, and Simply closed their services On their own. Not to mention some of those companies actually used the outrage generated and redirected them to the legislation using those very misinterpretations you're using : "They're banning it, we aren't". That was never the case : Companies actually stopped their services before the law was even put in place. Actually I think you're being confused because Belgium specifically banned lootboxes. Belgium actually **bans unlicensed gambling outright**, the only thing it ruled out, was that lootboxes were gambling, which you yourself recognize they are, and pretty much everyone under the sun does. The US **doesn't ban gambling**, therefore lootboxes arent actually at risk of being banned, all that's going to happen is that regulation applied to gambling **-currently, at this very instant-** could Apply to lootboxes. It doesn't state it intend to ban them, at all. Belgium did not ban lootboxes at random, it had Already banned gambling, it Simply ruled, like everyone else, that lootboxes were gambling, and thus it fell Under the same regulation. Belgium is not anti video game. > > > > > > > > Another thing you clearly dont understand is that black lion chests dont represent a large part of revenue for Guild wars 2 compared to mount skins, outfits, armor skins in general : People farm keys, it's such a common practice it's even recommended to new players. Those that dont farm in such a way buy the keys with gold, which doesn't generate gem revenue for Anet either. The people who spend gems on keys are a minority. That's nowhere near enough to shut down the game, you're overreacting. > > > > > > > > Here, let me give you an actual example of already implemented self regulation : Nexon owns a game called Mabinogi who is known for it's heavy indulgence on gachapons (so lootboxes). Until recently, they didn't display the percents of rate of acquisition of each individual item in those gachas. When legislations started to show interest in Hawaii, they started to put percents on all their gachas. It didn't stop people buying them, in fact it didn't change much of anything, the difference was that now the rates are clearly expressed in put in Numbers, it's a form of self regulation, but regulation regardless. Did it spell the end of gachapons for that game ? Absolutely not. Did it cave it's earnings ? It's too soon to say, but judging by the market of items acquired from those boxes, being sold by players, the rates are similar to how they were before percents were introduced. What changed however is that players -greatly- appreciated to know what they were paying for, and what their chances realistically are. It also put that specific company much closer to being given a pass, than a company who continues obscuring it's rates. > > > > > > > > What I'm trying to explain to you is that when a problem becomes endemic enough to be recognized and acknowledged, you need a structure to oversee, monitor and regulate it to avoid it spinning out of control. Currently, there is no such thing, but everyone agrees that gambling rates, particularly amongst the youngests have increased over many years. Something need to check on it, just like any evolving problem, and the industry is Not taking care of it. > > > > > > > > **TLDR : Belgium requires that you own a gambling license to perform gambling services, Under it's recognition that Lootboxes are gambling, it required that game companies acquire such a license to continue selling their lootboxes within the law, the gaming companies refused and pulled their services to avoid being fined for Unlicensed gambling** > > > > > > Only in Belgium this did shut down Gatcha's and people lost all their accounts and money/time put into the game. I don't think lootboxes or gatcha's (while they involve RNG which is a Gamble in essence as is many other things in life), are a gamble in the traditional legal sense that you would see in a casino which has regulations. The only reason Casino's are regulated is because money is exchanged both ways and while it is entertainment the reality is that those laws aren't really there to protect and regulate the customer they are there so the government gets its share of the profits. The payout of the gamble with lootboxes has no monetary value (sure you could illegally sell your account, but there is no official way to exchange it for money). its only real value is entertainment, just like logging into GW2 , there's no guarantee that mob will give you a precursor when you kill it, but if it does - wow that was fun. If it doesn't should we call for regulation? > > > > > > Sorry I'd rather have less laws then more, its optional entertainment and doesn't need to be regulated as its not like traditional gambling. > > > > Sorry, but I have to correct that again, you're Factually Wrong. People did not lose their accounts, or money, or time. Games have not been banned. Sale of a product within that game have been. Guild wars 2 players from Belgium can certify, they can still play, their account is still intact, what they acquired, even through black lion chests before, is still theirs. > > > > As for the rest of your argument, I wont bother trying to explain facts and sense to a wall. Regardless of the argument, this is not my country. What you want is what you want. What the situation needs is what the situation needs. It ends there. I'm not going to be voting for that law, I'm not an US Citizen. All I can add are established facts, and examples. Past that, it is of literally no concerns to me. > > > > You still disappoint in term of debate : I expected better than a "Because I dont wanna" and factually wrong deformation of what other stated (You still persist with lootbags when it has been debunked Numerous times that doesn't actually falls into lootbox territory). At this point you're either doing this on purpose, or cannot get out of your loop, either way, I have better things to do than to repeat what I and others have explained, numerous times. Believe what you will. > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > > > Their have been posters who want to ban them tho. Just a minor correction. > > > > > > > > Indeed, but that's not what the bill itself is about, therefore those posters are not actually properly informed. > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't affect me. Its no different then if i went and drank water to the point at which I drowned. Should we regulate how much water we give out because I went and did that? Think about my family members? Maybe we should card people to buy water or perhaps tell them that they cant buy more then 1 gallon at a time? No its ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > > Here's an even better analogy. Video games are addictive just in general. I've decided to play a video game 21 hrs a day 7 days a week. My family is devastated. I believe we should regulate the amount of hours that ANY person can play on all mmo's because i PERSONALLY have no self control and refuse to get any. Instead we need a blanket law that will simply not let anyone log into any mmo for more then 2hrs per day. Think about my family and children? Should we regulate this way? I don't think so... > > > > > > > > > > Only in this case of regulation of loot boxes it will ban it. They shut numerous Gatcha games down in Belgium and people lost their entire accounts. There were tons of other games that couldn't make up the revenue and simply closed down in protest and again more people lost their enjoyment and accounts all in the name of protecting children whom aren't supervised. Gw2 stopped selling black lion chests, and never replaced it with anything and I'm sure its sales were permanently diminished in Belgium, if they do that here it might be enough to close down the game. > > > > > > > > A regulation is an Oversight. Something that checks on it, makes sure it follows clear rules. How is that preventing anyone who enjoy this as a past time to continue enjoying it ? Really I do not understand it. Regulation gives you more information about something you partake in. > > > > > > > > Belgium did not shut those games down, companies themselves refused to regulate and provide the oversight needed for the government to check on them, and Simply closed their services On their own. Not to mention some of those companies actually used the outrage generated and redirected them to the legislation using those very misinterpretations you're using : "They're banning it, we aren't". That was never the case : Companies actually stopped their services before the law was even put in place. Actually I think you're being confused because Belgium specifically banned lootboxes. Belgium actually **bans unlicensed gambling outright**, the only thing it ruled out, was that lootboxes were gambling, which you yourself recognize they are, and pretty much everyone under the sun does. The US **doesn't ban gambling**, therefore lootboxes arent actually at risk of being banned, all that's going to happen is that regulation applied to gambling **-currently, at this very instant-** could Apply to lootboxes. It doesn't state it intend to ban them, at all. Belgium did not ban lootboxes at random, it had Already banned gambling, it Simply ruled, like everyone else, that lootboxes were gambling, and thus it fell Under the same regulation. Belgium is not anti video game. > > > > > > > > Another thing you clearly dont understand is that black lion chests dont represent a large part of revenue for Guild wars 2 compared to mount skins, outfits, armor skins in general : People farm keys, it's such a common practice it's even recommended to new players. Those that dont farm in such a way buy the keys with gold, which doesn't generate gem revenue for Anet either. The people who spend gems on keys are a minority. That's nowhere near enough to shut down the game, you're overreacting. > > > > > > > > Here, let me give you an actual example of already implemented self regulation : Nexon owns a game called Mabinogi who is known for it's heavy indulgence on gachapons (so lootboxes). Until recently, they didn't display the percents of rate of acquisition of each individual item in those gachas. When legislations started to show interest in Hawaii, they started to put percents on all their gachas. It didn't stop people buying them, in fact it didn't change much of anything, the difference was that now the rates are clearly expressed in put in Numbers, it's a form of self regulation, but regulation regardless. Did it spell the end of gachapons for that game ? Absolutely not. Did it cave it's earnings ? It's too soon to say, but judging by the market of items acquired from those boxes, being sold by players, the rates are similar to how they were before percents were introduced. What changed however is that players -greatly- appreciated to know what they were paying for, and what their chances realistically are. It also put that specific company much closer to being given a pass, than a company who continues obscuring it's rates. > > > > > > > > What I'm trying to explain to you is that when a problem becomes endemic enough to be recognized and acknowledged, you need a structure to oversee, monitor and regulate it to avoid it spinning out of control. Currently, there is no such thing, but everyone agrees that gambling rates, particularly amongst the youngests have increased over many years. Something need to check on it, just like any evolving problem, and the industry is Not taking care of it. > > > > > > > > **TLDR : Belgium requires that you own a gambling license to perform gambling services, Under it's recognition that Lootboxes are gambling, it required that game companies acquire such a license to continue selling their lootboxes within the law, the gaming companies refused and pulled their services to avoid being fined for Unlicensed gambling** > > > > > > > > Sure but this has become a debate about lootboxes in general not only the regulation. > > > > > > On the quote that gambling has increased do you have a source for that? I've only found that their is a correlation between gambling problems and lootboxes. Not in which direction this correlation goes > > > > I crossed references between NAFGAH and NCPG websites and reports, as well as articles who quoted those two organisations in particular. Some of it date back to 2016 mind, but in term of statistics, that's still fairly solid material. NAFGAH actually had a piece that compared rates of problem gambling compared to other countries in a similar position, the US apparently ranks fairly high up there. None in particular shows any graphs though, which is what I was really trying to find, and am surprised not to find, usually any such evolution is accurately graphed, but I cant find anything recent, or refering to a year by year progression. To be fair, those reference gambling addiction in General. Lootbox themselves, I simply extrapolated from the politics themselves, which true enough dont share their sources. I Believe it was mentionned during an hearing when the Hawaii governor first tried to tackle the issue with the gaming industry representatives. I do find studies, but they're by the UK government's Gambling commission, so they study their own population, the rise is sharp however : https://www.ft.com/content/7044b142-7313-11e8-aa31-31da4279a601 Even if it doesnt show 2018 and 2019, I seriously doubt the trend would suddenly abate and take a nosedive. > > > > This shows an excerpt from the Journal of Gambling Studies, which I -think- is US based ? https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Challenge-of-Online-Gambling%3A-The-Effect-of-on-Chóliz/1a3b5d920cd0b3789917ca39b0459cc651b9f1d7 It's older, and stop graphing at 2015, but still shows that upward trend. Lootboxes however still do not appear as a specific item of it, probably because the spotlight was shown more recently. I'd say, studies on -lootboxes- specifically haven't been concluded. Studies on gambling though, there are so here and there, not all of them public though it seems. > > Oh really games werent shut down due to ridiculous regulations? > > https://www.google.com/amp/s/tay.kinja.com/final-fantasy-brave-exvius-and-other-mobile-games-to-en-1830199770/amp And finally when you stop strawmaning, you make a decent case. Unfortunate that it doesn't really Apply here. It's a mobile game, who rely on agressive and pernicious microtransactions to stay afloat. The fact they couldn't use lootboxes and thus ended their service there is a given, lootboxes is probably how they make most of their money, which as I mentionned before, doesn't Apply to Guild wars 2, Black Lion Chests are Not the main earners, far from it. I rest my case. Again. Shame you woke up so late to start debating, your credibility took a hit as a result of your previous efforts to deform other people statements and wall off any possible debate. I Believe what you wish is an echo chamber, I shall not provide one for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaklex.6308 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > There is so much straw in defense of that system that I could fill 3 barns of it. > > > > > > The defense for lootboxes amounts to : > > > -Because you enjoy it > > > -Because you dont trust the government to stop there > > > -Because you dont care how it affects others > > > > > > The defense against lootboxes amounts to : > > > -It's based on losing system (Odds are -never- in the customer's favor) > > > -It's predatory, preys on weak willed people and reinforce their weakness > > > -It exploit basic psychology against players (sunk cost falacy) > > > -It is completely unregulated, with no accurate odds displayed in a majority of cases > > > > > > I dont want to bring morality into this, but I kind of have to : The device is with the intent of Exploiting, whether weak willed or not. It exploit a normal person by tempting them, and encourage them to continue spending to get what they want after they've already spent money failing to get it without knowing the odds, and that's without getting into people doing it while misinformed (underaged, or lacking knowledge). It then exploit psychology to elicit a prideful defense of the system based on the idea that since the person sunk so much money in it, they -have- to back it, or risk being made a fool of (aka, owning up to it). It's based on a psychologic trick, similar to social engineering and cons. > > > > > > People arent calling for bans. People are calling for -Limits-. If you cannot admit that limits are good to have in -anything-, I'm sorry to say your country well deserve the problems it's constantly saddled with. Casinos are regulated. TV shows are regulated. Alchohol is regulated. Food is regulated. Schools are regulated. Cars are regulated. And this applies to the US. The only thing that is Not regulated as far as I know are guns (and we all know where that ends up, the news mentions tragedies several times a year, when they dont mention common gun violence every month) and games. One might think regulating games would not be so hard, they're not part of the US constitution are they ? > > > > There’s a lot of ‘straw’ in the way you’re portraying those arguments that defend them. > > I've literally used Jum's main arguments throughout the thread. I'm perfectly willing to adjust my post, should someone provide a better formulated defense. I dont want to sound unfair, but some of the arguments I've read made me That annoyed, especially considering how nonchallantly they were written. I'm not going to say there arent good arguments to lootboxes, many of them Financial. Lootboxes have an inherent benefit to the company that uses them, which may in turn be used to bolster a game's future content, but that's a -may- at best. It can just be used to fund another product for example. > > I'd like to add that as of yet, I've not seen anyone who defend lootbox agree that oversight and regulations are needed, which to me is baffling : Food itself is regulated, it is checked, it can be traced, it has standarts, it has parts of the governments assigned to constantly check on how it's produced/imported/distributed/priced. And thanks to that, you know that when you buy meat, you're not buying cat meat. You want to compare gaming to food, that is like comparing apples to oranges...instead you should compare gaming to movies, two forms of entertainment, and the only regulation that movies have is a ratings system...which is not enforced by any government regulation or law. Gaming also has a ratings system in place, and it's not enforced by any government regulation or law...so we can logically say since movies are self-governed with an age restriction and so is gaming, then nothing needs to be done by the government as far as laws or regulations go...that's comparing apples to apples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > > > > > Their have been posters who want to ban them tho. Just a minor correction. > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, but that's not what the bill itself is about, therefore those posters are not actually properly informed. > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't affect me. Its no different then if i went and drank water to the point at which I drowned. Should we regulate how much water we give out because I went and did that? Think about my family members? Maybe we should card people to buy water or perhaps tell them that they cant buy more then 1 gallon at a time? No its ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's an even better analogy. Video games are addictive just in general. I've decided to play a video game 21 hrs a day 7 days a week. My family is devastated. I believe we should regulate the amount of hours that ANY person can play on all mmo's because i PERSONALLY have no self control and refuse to get any. Instead we need a blanket law that will simply not let anyone log into any mmo for more then 2hrs per day. Think about my family and children? Should we regulate this way? I don't think so... > > > > > > > > > > > > Only in this case of regulation of loot boxes it will ban it. They shut numerous Gatcha games down in Belgium and people lost their entire accounts. There were tons of other games that couldn't make up the revenue and simply closed down in protest and again more people lost their enjoyment and accounts all in the name of protecting children whom aren't supervised. Gw2 stopped selling black lion chests, and never replaced it with anything and I'm sure its sales were permanently diminished in Belgium, if they do that here it might be enough to close down the game. > > > > > > > > > > A regulation is an Oversight. Something that checks on it, makes sure it follows clear rules. How is that preventing anyone who enjoy this as a past time to continue enjoying it ? Really I do not understand it. Regulation gives you more information about something you partake in. > > > > > > > > > > Belgium did not shut those games down, companies themselves refused to regulate and provide the oversight needed for the government to check on them, and Simply closed their services On their own. Not to mention some of those companies actually used the outrage generated and redirected them to the legislation using those very misinterpretations you're using : "They're banning it, we aren't". That was never the case : Companies actually stopped their services before the law was even put in place. Actually I think you're being confused because Belgium specifically banned lootboxes. Belgium actually **bans unlicensed gambling outright**, the only thing it ruled out, was that lootboxes were gambling, which you yourself recognize they are, and pretty much everyone under the sun does. The US **doesn't ban gambling**, therefore lootboxes arent actually at risk of being banned, all that's going to happen is that regulation applied to gambling **-currently, at this very instant-** could Apply to lootboxes. It doesn't state it intend to ban them, at all. Belgium did not ban lootboxes at random, it had Already banned gambling, it Simply ruled, like everyone else, that lootboxes were gambling, and thus it fell Under the same regulation. Belgium is not anti video game. > > > > > > > > > > Another thing you clearly dont understand is that black lion chests dont represent a large part of revenue for Guild wars 2 compared to mount skins, outfits, armor skins in general : People farm keys, it's such a common practice it's even recommended to new players. Those that dont farm in such a way buy the keys with gold, which doesn't generate gem revenue for Anet either. The people who spend gems on keys are a minority. That's nowhere near enough to shut down the game, you're overreacting. > > > > > > > > > > Here, let me give you an actual example of already implemented self regulation : Nexon owns a game called Mabinogi who is known for it's heavy indulgence on gachapons (so lootboxes). Until recently, they didn't display the percents of rate of acquisition of each individual item in those gachas. When legislations started to show interest in Hawaii, they started to put percents on all their gachas. It didn't stop people buying them, in fact it didn't change much of anything, the difference was that now the rates are clearly expressed in put in Numbers, it's a form of self regulation, but regulation regardless. Did it spell the end of gachapons for that game ? Absolutely not. Did it cave it's earnings ? It's too soon to say, but judging by the market of items acquired from those boxes, being sold by players, the rates are similar to how they were before percents were introduced. What changed however is that players -greatly- appreciated to know what they were paying for, and what their chances realistically are. It also put that specific company much closer to being given a pass, than a company who continues obscuring it's rates. > > > > > > > > > > What I'm trying to explain to you is that when a problem becomes endemic enough to be recognized and acknowledged, you need a structure to oversee, monitor and regulate it to avoid it spinning out of control. Currently, there is no such thing, but everyone agrees that gambling rates, particularly amongst the youngests have increased over many years. Something need to check on it, just like any evolving problem, and the industry is Not taking care of it. > > > > > > > > > > **TLDR : Belgium requires that you own a gambling license to perform gambling services, Under it's recognition that Lootboxes are gambling, it required that game companies acquire such a license to continue selling their lootboxes within the law, the gaming companies refused and pulled their services to avoid being fined for Unlicensed gambling** > > > > > > > > Only in Belgium this did shut down Gatcha's and people lost all their accounts and money/time put into the game. I don't think lootboxes or gatcha's (while they involve RNG which is a Gamble in essence as is many other things in life), are a gamble in the traditional legal sense that you would see in a casino which has regulations. The only reason Casino's are regulated is because money is exchanged both ways and while it is entertainment the reality is that those laws aren't really there to protect and regulate the customer they are there so the government gets its share of the profits. The payout of the gamble with lootboxes has no monetary value (sure you could illegally sell your account, but there is no official way to exchange it for money). its only real value is entertainment, just like logging into GW2 , there's no guarantee that mob will give you a precursor when you kill it, but if it does - wow that was fun. If it doesn't should we call for regulation? > > > > > > > > Sorry I'd rather have less laws then more, its optional entertainment and doesn't need to be regulated as its not like traditional gambling. > > > > > > Sorry, but I have to correct that again, you're Factually Wrong. People did not lose their accounts, or money, or time. Games have not been banned. Sale of a product within that game have been. Guild wars 2 players from Belgium can certify, they can still play, their account is still intact, what they acquired, even through black lion chests before, is still theirs. > > > > > > As for the rest of your argument, I wont bother trying to explain facts and sense to a wall. Regardless of the argument, this is not my country. What you want is what you want. What the situation needs is what the situation needs. It ends there. I'm not going to be voting for that law, I'm not an US Citizen. All I can add are established facts, and examples. Past that, it is of literally no concerns to me. > > > > > > You still disappoint in term of debate : I expected better than a "Because I dont wanna" and factually wrong deformation of what other stated (You still persist with lootbags when it has been debunked Numerous times that doesn't actually falls into lootbox territory). At this point you're either doing this on purpose, or cannot get out of your loop, either way, I have better things to do than to repeat what I and others have explained, numerous times. Believe what you will. > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > > > > > Their have been posters who want to ban them tho. Just a minor correction. > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, but that's not what the bill itself is about, therefore those posters are not actually properly informed. > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't affect me. Its no different then if i went and drank water to the point at which I drowned. Should we regulate how much water we give out because I went and did that? Think about my family members? Maybe we should card people to buy water or perhaps tell them that they cant buy more then 1 gallon at a time? No its ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's an even better analogy. Video games are addictive just in general. I've decided to play a video game 21 hrs a day 7 days a week. My family is devastated. I believe we should regulate the amount of hours that ANY person can play on all mmo's because i PERSONALLY have no self control and refuse to get any. Instead we need a blanket law that will simply not let anyone log into any mmo for more then 2hrs per day. Think about my family and children? Should we regulate this way? I don't think so... > > > > > > > > > > > > Only in this case of regulation of loot boxes it will ban it. They shut numerous Gatcha games down in Belgium and people lost their entire accounts. There were tons of other games that couldn't make up the revenue and simply closed down in protest and again more people lost their enjoyment and accounts all in the name of protecting children whom aren't supervised. Gw2 stopped selling black lion chests, and never replaced it with anything and I'm sure its sales were permanently diminished in Belgium, if they do that here it might be enough to close down the game. > > > > > > > > > > A regulation is an Oversight. Something that checks on it, makes sure it follows clear rules. How is that preventing anyone who enjoy this as a past time to continue enjoying it ? Really I do not understand it. Regulation gives you more information about something you partake in. > > > > > > > > > > Belgium did not shut those games down, companies themselves refused to regulate and provide the oversight needed for the government to check on them, and Simply closed their services On their own. Not to mention some of those companies actually used the outrage generated and redirected them to the legislation using those very misinterpretations you're using : "They're banning it, we aren't". That was never the case : Companies actually stopped their services before the law was even put in place. Actually I think you're being confused because Belgium specifically banned lootboxes. Belgium actually **bans unlicensed gambling outright**, the only thing it ruled out, was that lootboxes were gambling, which you yourself recognize they are, and pretty much everyone under the sun does. The US **doesn't ban gambling**, therefore lootboxes arent actually at risk of being banned, all that's going to happen is that regulation applied to gambling **-currently, at this very instant-** could Apply to lootboxes. It doesn't state it intend to ban them, at all. Belgium did not ban lootboxes at random, it had Already banned gambling, it Simply ruled, like everyone else, that lootboxes were gambling, and thus it fell Under the same regulation. Belgium is not anti video game. > > > > > > > > > > Another thing you clearly dont understand is that black lion chests dont represent a large part of revenue for Guild wars 2 compared to mount skins, outfits, armor skins in general : People farm keys, it's such a common practice it's even recommended to new players. Those that dont farm in such a way buy the keys with gold, which doesn't generate gem revenue for Anet either. The people who spend gems on keys are a minority. That's nowhere near enough to shut down the game, you're overreacting. > > > > > > > > > > Here, let me give you an actual example of already implemented self regulation : Nexon owns a game called Mabinogi who is known for it's heavy indulgence on gachapons (so lootboxes). Until recently, they didn't display the percents of rate of acquisition of each individual item in those gachas. When legislations started to show interest in Hawaii, they started to put percents on all their gachas. It didn't stop people buying them, in fact it didn't change much of anything, the difference was that now the rates are clearly expressed in put in Numbers, it's a form of self regulation, but regulation regardless. Did it spell the end of gachapons for that game ? Absolutely not. Did it cave it's earnings ? It's too soon to say, but judging by the market of items acquired from those boxes, being sold by players, the rates are similar to how they were before percents were introduced. What changed however is that players -greatly- appreciated to know what they were paying for, and what their chances realistically are. It also put that specific company much closer to being given a pass, than a company who continues obscuring it's rates. > > > > > > > > > > What I'm trying to explain to you is that when a problem becomes endemic enough to be recognized and acknowledged, you need a structure to oversee, monitor and regulate it to avoid it spinning out of control. Currently, there is no such thing, but everyone agrees that gambling rates, particularly amongst the youngests have increased over many years. Something need to check on it, just like any evolving problem, and the industry is Not taking care of it. > > > > > > > > > > **TLDR : Belgium requires that you own a gambling license to perform gambling services, Under it's recognition that Lootboxes are gambling, it required that game companies acquire such a license to continue selling their lootboxes within the law, the gaming companies refused and pulled their services to avoid being fined for Unlicensed gambling** > > > > > > > > > > > Sure but this has become a debate about lootboxes in general not only the regulation. > > > > > > > > On the quote that gambling has increased do you have a source for that? I've only found that their is a correlation between gambling problems and lootboxes. Not in which direction this correlation goes > > > > > > I crossed references between NAFGAH and NCPG websites and reports, as well as articles who quoted those two organisations in particular. Some of it date back to 2016 mind, but in term of statistics, that's still fairly solid material. NAFGAH actually had a piece that compared rates of problem gambling compared to other countries in a similar position, the US apparently ranks fairly high up there. None in particular shows any graphs though, which is what I was really trying to find, and am surprised not to find, usually any such evolution is accurately graphed, but I cant find anything recent, or refering to a year by year progression. To be fair, those reference gambling addiction in General. Lootbox themselves, I simply extrapolated from the politics themselves, which true enough dont share their sources. I Believe it was mentionned during an hearing when the Hawaii governor first tried to tackle the issue with the gaming industry representatives. I do find studies, but they're by the UK government's Gambling commission, so they study their own population, the rise is sharp however : https://www.ft.com/content/7044b142-7313-11e8-aa31-31da4279a601 Even if it doesnt show 2018 and 2019, I seriously doubt the trend would suddenly abate and take a nosedive. > > > > > > This shows an excerpt from the Journal of Gambling Studies, which I -think- is US based ? https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Challenge-of-Online-Gambling%3A-The-Effect-of-on-Chóliz/1a3b5d920cd0b3789917ca39b0459cc651b9f1d7 It's older, and stop graphing at 2015, but still shows that upward trend. Lootboxes however still do not appear as a specific item of it, probably because the spotlight was shown more recently. I'd say, studies on -lootboxes- specifically haven't been concluded. Studies on gambling though, there are so here and there, not all of them public though it seems. > > > > Oh really games werent shut down due to ridiculous regulations? > > > > https://www.google.com/amp/s/tay.kinja.com/final-fantasy-brave-exvius-and-other-mobile-games-to-en-1830199770/amp > > And finally when you stop strawmaning, you make a decent case. Unfortunate that it doesn't really Apply here. It's a mobile game, who rely on agressive and pernicious microtransactions to stay afloat. The fact they couldn't use lootboxes and thus ended their service there is a given, lootboxes is probably how they make most of their money, which as I mentionned before, doesn't Apply to Guild wars 2, Black Lion Chests are Not the main earners, far from it. I rest my case. Again. Shame you woke up so late to start debating, your credibility took a hit as a result of your previous efforts to deform other people statements and wall off any possible debate. I Believe what you wish is an echo chamber, I shall not provide one for you. It does affect gw2 and many other games so again you have no point. I like black lion chests, and I dont think gw2 deserves a financial hit for something that isnt the same as regular gambling in a casino. I like the gold and gem exchange as well. Every gamble in all digital games are simply for entertainment. The only argument I've heard from your camp is that gambling is morally wrong and it preys upon children. Doesnt even apply to these games, if you dont like lootboxes then dont buy them, nobody forces you. They arent required to play the game in 99% of all cases in all games. Least of all gw2 where it's just a bunch of skins and dyes and some convenience items. Also morals are not a good foundation for the building of laws as many people dont share the same morals or taboos that you might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naxos.2503 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > There is so much straw in defense of that system that I could fill 3 barns of it. > > > > > > > > The defense for lootboxes amounts to : > > > > -Because you enjoy it > > > > -Because you dont trust the government to stop there > > > > -Because you dont care how it affects others > > > > > > > > The defense against lootboxes amounts to : > > > > -It's based on losing system (Odds are -never- in the customer's favor) > > > > -It's predatory, preys on weak willed people and reinforce their weakness > > > > -It exploit basic psychology against players (sunk cost falacy) > > > > -It is completely unregulated, with no accurate odds displayed in a majority of cases > > > > > > > > I dont want to bring morality into this, but I kind of have to : The device is with the intent of Exploiting, whether weak willed or not. It exploit a normal person by tempting them, and encourage them to continue spending to get what they want after they've already spent money failing to get it without knowing the odds, and that's without getting into people doing it while misinformed (underaged, or lacking knowledge). It then exploit psychology to elicit a prideful defense of the system based on the idea that since the person sunk so much money in it, they -have- to back it, or risk being made a fool of (aka, owning up to it). It's based on a psychologic trick, similar to social engineering and cons. > > > > > > > > People arent calling for bans. People are calling for -Limits-. If you cannot admit that limits are good to have in -anything-, I'm sorry to say your country well deserve the problems it's constantly saddled with. Casinos are regulated. TV shows are regulated. Alchohol is regulated. Food is regulated. Schools are regulated. Cars are regulated. And this applies to the US. The only thing that is Not regulated as far as I know are guns (and we all know where that ends up, the news mentions tragedies several times a year, when they dont mention common gun violence every month) and games. One might think regulating games would not be so hard, they're not part of the US constitution are they ? > > > > > > There’s a lot of ‘straw’ in the way you’re portraying those arguments that defend them. > > > > I've literally used Jum's main arguments throughout the thread. I'm perfectly willing to adjust my post, should someone provide a better formulated defense. I dont want to sound unfair, but some of the arguments I've read made me That annoyed, especially considering how nonchallantly they were written. I'm not going to say there arent good arguments to lootboxes, many of them Financial. Lootboxes have an inherent benefit to the company that uses them, which may in turn be used to bolster a game's future content, but that's a -may- at best. It can just be used to fund another product for example. > > > > I'd like to add that as of yet, I've not seen anyone who defend lootbox agree that oversight and regulations are needed, which to me is baffling : Food itself is regulated, it is checked, it can be traced, it has standarts, it has parts of the governments assigned to constantly check on how it's produced/imported/distributed/priced. And thanks to that, you know that when you buy meat, you're not buying cat meat. > > You want to compare gaming to food, that is like comparing apples to oranges...instead you should compare gaming to movies, two forms of entertainment, and the only regulation that movies have is a ratings system...which is not enforced by any government regulation or law. Gaming also has a ratings system in place, and it's not enforced by any government regulation or law...so we can logically say since movies are self-governed with an age restriction and so is gaming, then nothing needs to be done by the government as far as laws or regulations go...that's comparing apples to apples. You're correct in a sense, except that technically, it isn't games that are under scutiny, but a part of games that equals to Something which is regulated differently than games are. Therefore, it infers that indeed, comparing apples to apples is what the government is trying to do : if lootboxes are recognized as gambling, then it should be regulated as such. Again, gambling laws already exist in the US. Whether or not they should is a matter of opinion in the end, none will agree, but that's the logic they're going with, which is sensical. Also, I dont want to be overly negative, but the ESRB has time and time again been failing at it's self regulating roles, games are occasionally mis-rated because the games were not played fully, and while they do put up a warning label to mention what the content is, there is actually no enforcement of what happens if an underrage child buys a game not made for them, I know, because it happens everywhere, not just the US. If you've been working in education, you most likely hear kids at highschool mention GTAV, a game rated for Mature audiences. The ESRB rating is accurate, but what comes after is not followed through, which kind of invalidate the Reason for a warning sticker in the first place. It's not the first time that argument was raised against the ESRB to my knowledge. If you want me to explain why in particular I put an emphasis on food in my diatribe, it's because food is Something everyone is familiar with, and is omnipresent. Nobody would want it to be unchecked, for sanitory reasons among other things, It was also one of the easiest example to work with : as I mentionned, when you want to buy meat with an unregulated system, you have no way of knowing where it comes from, what's it's made of, what is in it, and what animal it was, therefore you might just end up buying a package named "Meat" and actually buying cat meat. Obviously Something extreme, but it carried the point I was trying to make that much more effectively : checks are needed in everything, otherwise you end up with loopholes and abuses, sometime with varied degrees of serious consequences. What may seem trivial now to many will end up becoming a much larger issue overtime the later it is adressed. And contrary to many who call for outright bans, that is not what the bill is about, the bill is about transparency, and applying existing regulation to something which falls under it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 I'd imagine if relegation gets too stringent or if they cannot replace the stream of revenue with an equivalent source (because AAA games cost money and just breaking even doesn't cut it), they will simply stop marketing to kids. There will still be the E for Everyone games and the T for Teens games but a majority of the "juicy" AAA games that kids these days crave might just become MA+. One might say "Ah! you'd cut off a huge demographic and deeper into profits" well, things like Amazon/Steam/digital downloads make it so it may not be important to market games in your brick-and-mortar locations and if kids end up getting their parents to buy whatever games they want, even the MA games, you just push kids to play the same games illegally but no one is going to prosecute a kid for playing a game... That and the demographic for video games seems to continuously broaden. Games once considered baby/kids focused still appeal to adults+ which could be due to the west infantilizing its citizens (see: politically correct, anti-bullying nanny-state antics or the daycare-like universities being combated now) or just that media itself is so accessible and tailored to the user's desires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaklex.6308 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > There is so much straw in defense of that system that I could fill 3 barns of it. > > > > > > > > > > The defense for lootboxes amounts to : > > > > > -Because you enjoy it > > > > > -Because you dont trust the government to stop there > > > > > -Because you dont care how it affects others > > > > > > > > > > The defense against lootboxes amounts to : > > > > > -It's based on losing system (Odds are -never- in the customer's favor) > > > > > -It's predatory, preys on weak willed people and reinforce their weakness > > > > > -It exploit basic psychology against players (sunk cost falacy) > > > > > -It is completely unregulated, with no accurate odds displayed in a majority of cases > > > > > > > > > > I dont want to bring morality into this, but I kind of have to : The device is with the intent of Exploiting, whether weak willed or not. It exploit a normal person by tempting them, and encourage them to continue spending to get what they want after they've already spent money failing to get it without knowing the odds, and that's without getting into people doing it while misinformed (underaged, or lacking knowledge). It then exploit psychology to elicit a prideful defense of the system based on the idea that since the person sunk so much money in it, they -have- to back it, or risk being made a fool of (aka, owning up to it). It's based on a psychologic trick, similar to social engineering and cons. > > > > > > > > > > People arent calling for bans. People are calling for -Limits-. If you cannot admit that limits are good to have in -anything-, I'm sorry to say your country well deserve the problems it's constantly saddled with. Casinos are regulated. TV shows are regulated. Alchohol is regulated. Food is regulated. Schools are regulated. Cars are regulated. And this applies to the US. The only thing that is Not regulated as far as I know are guns (and we all know where that ends up, the news mentions tragedies several times a year, when they dont mention common gun violence every month) and games. One might think regulating games would not be so hard, they're not part of the US constitution are they ? > > > > > > > > There’s a lot of ‘straw’ in the way you’re portraying those arguments that defend them. > > > > > > I've literally used Jum's main arguments throughout the thread. I'm perfectly willing to adjust my post, should someone provide a better formulated defense. I dont want to sound unfair, but some of the arguments I've read made me That annoyed, especially considering how nonchallantly they were written. I'm not going to say there arent good arguments to lootboxes, many of them Financial. Lootboxes have an inherent benefit to the company that uses them, which may in turn be used to bolster a game's future content, but that's a -may- at best. It can just be used to fund another product for example. > > > > > > I'd like to add that as of yet, I've not seen anyone who defend lootbox agree that oversight and regulations are needed, which to me is baffling : Food itself is regulated, it is checked, it can be traced, it has standarts, it has parts of the governments assigned to constantly check on how it's produced/imported/distributed/priced. And thanks to that, you know that when you buy meat, you're not buying cat meat. > > > > You want to compare gaming to food, that is like comparing apples to oranges...instead you should compare gaming to movies, two forms of entertainment, and the only regulation that movies have is a ratings system...which is not enforced by any government regulation or law. Gaming also has a ratings system in place, and it's not enforced by any government regulation or law...so we can logically say since movies are self-governed with an age restriction and so is gaming, then nothing needs to be done by the government as far as laws or regulations go...that's comparing apples to apples. > > You're correct in a sense, except that technically, it isn't games that are under scutiny, but a part of games that equals to Something which is regulated differently than games are. Therefore, it infers that indeed, comparing apples to apples is what the government is trying to do : if lootboxes are recognized as gambling, then it should be regulated as such. Again, gambling laws already exist in the US. Whether or not they should is a matter of opinion in the end, none will agree, but that's the logic they're going with, which is sensical. > > If you want me to explain why in particular I put an emphasis on food in my diatribe, it's because food is Something everyone is familiar with, and is omnipresent. Nobody would want it to be unchecked, for sanitory reasons among other things, It was also one of the easiest example to work with : as I mentionned, when you want to buy meat with an unregulated system, you have no way of knowing where it comes from, what's it's made of, what is in it, and what animal it was, therefore you might just end up buying a package named "Meat" and actually buying cat meat. Obviously Something extreme, but it carried the point I was trying to make that much more effectively : checks are needed in everything, otherwise you end up with loopholes and abuses, sometime with varied degrees of serious consequences. What may seem trivial now to many will end up becoming a much larger issue overtime the later it is adressed. And contrary to many who call for outright bans, that is not what the bill is about, the bill is about transparency, and applying existing regulation to something which falls under it. The problem most people don't understand when saying loot boxes are like gambling is that we, the U.S., has a legal definition of gambling in the Federal Register, and loot boxes don't match it. I looked it up once before just to confirm it(when the whole Belgian thing came up) and I've kept repeating it every time this comes up in the U.S., The Federal Register, which is a book that contains all Federal regulations has several that are about gambling, but the relevant basically states that in order for a game to be considered gambling it has to have someone put money into it without a chance of getting anything in return...in other words, you don't win something every single time you play the game, that is gambling in it's truest sense. As far as I know all loot boxes would not fall in this category, unless there's a game out there that actually allows someone to buy a loot box with the potential of it being empty, then that would be gambling. So as long as you get something from a BLTC, even if the value is 1/100 of what you paid for it, that still is not legally gambling in the U.S., you are guaranteed to win something, regardless of value. A system like that doesn't need regulation by the government, it doesn't fall under the gambling definition, so they would have to change the definition first and I can't see that happening. It also means this freshman Congressman doesn't even know our own regulations, nor does his staff, otherwise someone would have pointed out to him that he would have to get the definition changed first. Also, it's not even a bill yet, just a proposal, at this point in time it is nothing more than talk, probably to get some publicity and nothing more from my point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naxos.2503 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > I'd imagine if relegation gets too stringent or if they cannot replace the stream of revenue with an equivalent source (because AAA games cost money and just breaking even doesn't cut it), they will simply stop marketing to kids. > > There will still be the E for Everyone games and the T for Teens games but a majority of the "juicy" AAA games that kids these days crave might just become MA+. One might say "Ah! you'd cut off a huge demographic and deeper into profits" well, things like Amazon/Steam/digital downloads make it so it may not be important to market games in your brick-and-mortar locations and if kids end up getting their parents to buy whatever games they want, even the MA games, you just push kids to play the same games illegally but no one is going to prosecute a kid for playing a game... > > That and the demographic for video games seems to continuously broaden. Games once considered baby/kids focused still appeal to adults+ which could be due to the west infantilizing its citizens (see: politically correct, anti-bullying nanny-state antics or the daycare-like universities being combated now) or just that media itself is so accessible and tailored to the user's desires. Technically, we've already seen that trend starting even, most of the well known triple AAA games recently released are Indeed for mature audiences. I dont really know if it's specifically due to those specific concerns though, or if it's Simply where their target demographic really is. One thing that would be rather interesting would be to see if Nintendo (a japanese gaming company, thus in a country where the culture of gachapon is promiment and accepted), whose main target audience is generally a Younger age, or at least accepting to all, actually uses lootboxes of a sort. I must profess genuinely not knowing, I dont think so, but there is still a possibility they follow the trend. If they dont, then it'd give a bit more point toward Publishers who are mindful of their target audience when monetizing. Then again, Nintendo has always been rather on it's own, doing things it's way > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > There is so much straw in defense of that system that I could fill 3 barns of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > The defense for lootboxes amounts to : > > > > > > -Because you enjoy it > > > > > > -Because you dont trust the government to stop there > > > > > > -Because you dont care how it affects others > > > > > > > > > > > > The defense against lootboxes amounts to : > > > > > > -It's based on losing system (Odds are -never- in the customer's favor) > > > > > > -It's predatory, preys on weak willed people and reinforce their weakness > > > > > > -It exploit basic psychology against players (sunk cost falacy) > > > > > > -It is completely unregulated, with no accurate odds displayed in a majority of cases > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont want to bring morality into this, but I kind of have to : The device is with the intent of Exploiting, whether weak willed or not. It exploit a normal person by tempting them, and encourage them to continue spending to get what they want after they've already spent money failing to get it without knowing the odds, and that's without getting into people doing it while misinformed (underaged, or lacking knowledge). It then exploit psychology to elicit a prideful defense of the system based on the idea that since the person sunk so much money in it, they -have- to back it, or risk being made a fool of (aka, owning up to it). It's based on a psychologic trick, similar to social engineering and cons. > > > > > > > > > > > > People arent calling for bans. People are calling for -Limits-. If you cannot admit that limits are good to have in -anything-, I'm sorry to say your country well deserve the problems it's constantly saddled with. Casinos are regulated. TV shows are regulated. Alchohol is regulated. Food is regulated. Schools are regulated. Cars are regulated. And this applies to the US. The only thing that is Not regulated as far as I know are guns (and we all know where that ends up, the news mentions tragedies several times a year, when they dont mention common gun violence every month) and games. One might think regulating games would not be so hard, they're not part of the US constitution are they ? > > > > > > > > > > There’s a lot of ‘straw’ in the way you’re portraying those arguments that defend them. > > > > > > > > I've literally used Jum's main arguments throughout the thread. I'm perfectly willing to adjust my post, should someone provide a better formulated defense. I dont want to sound unfair, but some of the arguments I've read made me That annoyed, especially considering how nonchallantly they were written. I'm not going to say there arent good arguments to lootboxes, many of them Financial. Lootboxes have an inherent benefit to the company that uses them, which may in turn be used to bolster a game's future content, but that's a -may- at best. It can just be used to fund another product for example. > > > > > > > > I'd like to add that as of yet, I've not seen anyone who defend lootbox agree that oversight and regulations are needed, which to me is baffling : Food itself is regulated, it is checked, it can be traced, it has standarts, it has parts of the governments assigned to constantly check on how it's produced/imported/distributed/priced. And thanks to that, you know that when you buy meat, you're not buying cat meat. > > > > > > You want to compare gaming to food, that is like comparing apples to oranges...instead you should compare gaming to movies, two forms of entertainment, and the only regulation that movies have is a ratings system...which is not enforced by any government regulation or law. Gaming also has a ratings system in place, and it's not enforced by any government regulation or law...so we can logically say since movies are self-governed with an age restriction and so is gaming, then nothing needs to be done by the government as far as laws or regulations go...that's comparing apples to apples. > > > > You're correct in a sense, except that technically, it isn't games that are under scutiny, but a part of games that equals to Something which is regulated differently than games are. Therefore, it infers that indeed, comparing apples to apples is what the government is trying to do : if lootboxes are recognized as gambling, then it should be regulated as such. Again, gambling laws already exist in the US. Whether or not they should is a matter of opinion in the end, none will agree, but that's the logic they're going with, which is sensical. > > > > If you want me to explain why in particular I put an emphasis on food in my diatribe, it's because food is Something everyone is familiar with, and is omnipresent. Nobody would want it to be unchecked, for sanitory reasons among other things, It was also one of the easiest example to work with : as I mentionned, when you want to buy meat with an unregulated system, you have no way of knowing where it comes from, what's it's made of, what is in it, and what animal it was, therefore you might just end up buying a package named "Meat" and actually buying cat meat. Obviously Something extreme, but it carried the point I was trying to make that much more effectively : checks are needed in everything, otherwise you end up with loopholes and abuses, sometime with varied degrees of serious consequences. What may seem trivial now to many will end up becoming a much larger issue overtime the later it is adressed. And contrary to many who call for outright bans, that is not what the bill is about, the bill is about transparency, and applying existing regulation to something which falls under it. > > The problem most people don't understand when saying loot boxes are like gambling is that we, the U.S., has a legal definition of gambling in the Federal Register, and loot boxes don't match it. I looked it up once before just to confirm it(when the whole Belgian thing came up) and I've kept repeating it every time this comes up in the U.S., The Federal Register, which is a book that contains all Federal regulations has several that are about gambling, but the relevant basically states that in order for a game to be considered gambling it has to have someone put money into it without a chance of getting anything in return...in other words, you don't win something every single time you play the game, that is gambling in it's truest sense. As far as I know all loot boxes would not fall in this category, unless there's a game out there that actually allows someone to buy a loot box with the potential of it being empty, then that would be gambling. So as long as you get something from a BLTC, even if the value is 1/100 of what you paid for it, that still is not legally gambling in the U.S., you are guaranteed to win something, regardless of value. A system like that doesn't need regulation by the government, it doesn't fall under the gambling definition, so they would have to change the definition first and I can't see that happening. It also means this freshman Congressman doesn't even know our own regulations, nor does his staff, otherwise someone would have pointed out to him that he would have to get the definition changed first. > > Also, it's not even a bill yet, just a proposal, at this point in time it is nothing more than talk, probably to get some publicity and nothing more from my point of view. You're correct again in that it is actually the crux of the debate : Is lootbox actually gambling if you receive Something each time you play, instead of lose when you fail to reach your target goal. One might argue that it would be relatively easy to design a slot machine that cost 10 tokens to play, with a prize ranging from 100 tokens to 1 token. In that particular case, you'd still get Something in return for your investment, it just wouldn't be Something that fits the original investment you made. I think one could say that would still be gambling in that case, since getting the lowest possible reward is not considered "winning", you get a prize Worth less than what what you originally paid in token amounts. I think the debate over lootboxes is around that general gray area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChronoPinoyX.7923 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > Oh really games werent shut down due to ridiculous regulations? > > https://tay.kinja.com/final-fantasy-brave-exvius-and-other-mobile-games-to-en-1830199770 Perfect example of a game that relies on lootboxes only for their revenue. No long term plans to keep the game running, didn't even try to make effort for their Belgian audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrimm.5624 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Naxos.2503" said: > I understand the concerns that there are more pressing issues at hand. That is a given. The problem with that mindset is that there Always will be more pressing issues at hand. And the longer the practice is left unregulated and unchecked, the more it reinforce and becomes harder to counter. Lobbyist will prepare and fight regulation of any type. > There will Always be a more important issue, but important issues take time to discuss and find a correct solution for. In this particular case, telling the gaming industry to either put the odds the lootboxes on display, change the Economy model of their games, or be fined, is not actually too complicated, it's an issue that would be fairly easily raised and passed in legislation. Enforcing it will take a bit longer, but once it's started, it's out of the government's legislative branch's hands, and they can return to discussing hard issues on the long term, or moving on with smaller issues like this. A small problem can easily snowball into something much stronger. Microtransactions werent nearly as predatory 10 years ago as they are now, it's the effect of not putting in the checks for a long period of time, and a trend that will not change until it is addressed. Wait....you just said it yourself. This is small fish. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying government time is limited. It always has been, odds are it always will be. People are dying because of distraction, how can you rank loot boxes next to people dying. A gamer choosing to buy a loot box is not in the same league as safe food and clean water, which the US does not have intact right now. Governments should be focused on keeping people alive, gamers should step up and be adults and parents and self-regulate businesses we support thru funding. Do you honestly think Disney is all about Kids? No they are looking to addict kids to their brands. I know 40 year olds that are addicted to Disney because they were as kids and now drive their children thru the same process. Where is the regulation on the movie industry? These are not of equal weight. Again not saying I support all game companies activities but I choose when to play what games, people need to step up and say no, I don't support this. Government needs to step up and deal with things that are beyond gamer control. As a gamer I can't control where my water comes from. I can control what games I play. These issues are not in the same ballpark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > You want to compare gaming to food, that is like comparing apples to oranges...instead you should compare gaming to movies, two forms of entertainment, and the only regulation that movies have is a ratings system...which is not enforced by any government regulation or law. Gaming also has a ratings system in place, and it's not enforced by any government regulation or law...so we can logically say since movies are self-governed with an age restriction and so is gaming, then nothing needs to be done by the government as far as laws or regulations go...that's comparing apples to apples. The difference is that movies _are_ self-regulated, but in case of lootboxes, the industry refuses to self-regulate them in similar way. Yes, if the industry decided to self-regulate and put 21+ stickers and gambling warnings on the games with lootboxes (and gave detailed information about odds in them), probably no more regulations would have been needed (at least in US). That would however impact how those games are sold and advertised (because there are already regulations in the industry about the age restrictions), so the industry so far was unwilling to make that move. And since they don't want to do that themselves, it falls to someone else to regulate it for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexxxDelta.1806 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > Their have been posters who want to ban them tho. Just a minor correction. > > > > > > Indeed, but that's not what the bill itself is about, therefore those posters are not actually properly informed. > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > It doesn't affect me. Its no different then if i went and drank water to the point at which I drowned. Should we regulate how much water we give out because I went and did that? Think about my family members? Maybe we should card people to buy water or perhaps tell them that they cant buy more then 1 gallon at a time? No its ridiculous. > > > > > > > > Here's an even better analogy. Video games are addictive just in general. I've decided to play a video game 21 hrs a day 7 days a week. My family is devastated. I believe we should regulate the amount of hours that ANY person can play on all mmo's because i PERSONALLY have no self control and refuse to get any. Instead we need a blanket law that will simply not let anyone log into any mmo for more then 2hrs per day. Think about my family and children? Should we regulate this way? I don't think so... > > > > > > > > Only in this case of regulation of loot boxes it will ban it. They shut numerous Gatcha games down in Belgium and people lost their entire accounts. There were tons of other games that couldn't make up the revenue and simply closed down in protest and again more people lost their enjoyment and accounts all in the name of protecting children whom aren't supervised. Gw2 stopped selling black lion chests, and never replaced it with anything and I'm sure its sales were permanently diminished in Belgium, if they do that here it might be enough to close down the game. > > > > > > A regulation is an Oversight. Something that checks on it, makes sure it follows clear rules. How is that preventing anyone who enjoy this as a past time to continue enjoying it ? Really I do not understand it. Regulation gives you more information about something you partake in. > > > > > > Belgium did not shut those games down, companies themselves refused to regulate and provide the oversight needed for the government to check on them, and Simply closed their services On their own. Not to mention some of those companies actually used the outrage generated and redirected them to the legislation using those very misinterpretations you're using : "They're banning it, we aren't". That was never the case : Companies actually stopped their services before the law was even put in place. Actually I think you're being confused because Belgium specifically banned lootboxes. Belgium actually **bans unlicensed gambling outright**, the only thing it ruled out, was that lootboxes were gambling, which you yourself recognize they are, and pretty much everyone under the sun does. The US **doesn't ban gambling**, therefore lootboxes arent actually at risk of being banned, all that's going to happen is that regulation applied to gambling **-currently, at this very instant-** could Apply to lootboxes. It doesn't state it intend to ban them, at all. Belgium did not ban lootboxes at random, it had Already banned gambling, it Simply ruled, like everyone else, that lootboxes were gambling, and thus it fell Under the same regulation. Belgium is not anti video game. > > > > > > Another thing you clearly dont understand is that black lion chests dont represent a large part of revenue for Guild wars 2 compared to mount skins, outfits, armor skins in general : People farm keys, it's such a common practice it's even recommended to new players. Those that dont farm in such a way buy the keys with gold, which doesn't generate gem revenue for Anet either. The people who spend gems on keys are a minority. That's nowhere near enough to shut down the game, you're overreacting. > > > > > > Here, let me give you an actual example of already implemented self regulation : Nexon owns a game called Mabinogi who is known for it's heavy indulgence on gachapons (so lootboxes). Until recently, they didn't display the percents of rate of acquisition of each individual item in those gachas. When legislations started to show interest in Hawaii, they started to put percents on all their gachas. It didn't stop people buying them, in fact it didn't change much of anything, the difference was that now the rates are clearly expressed in put in Numbers, it's a form of self regulation, but regulation regardless. Did it spell the end of gachapons for that game ? Absolutely not. Did it cave it's earnings ? It's too soon to say, but judging by the market of items acquired from those boxes, being sold by players, the rates are similar to how they were before percents were introduced. What changed however is that players -greatly- appreciated to know what they were paying for, and what their chances realistically are. It also put that specific company much closer to being given a pass, than a company who continues obscuring it's rates. > > > > > > What I'm trying to explain to you is that when a problem becomes endemic enough to be recognized and acknowledged, you need a structure to oversee, monitor and regulate it to avoid it spinning out of control. Currently, there is no such thing, but everyone agrees that gambling rates, particularly amongst the youngests have increased over many years. Something need to check on it, just like any evolving problem, and the industry is Not taking care of it. > > > > > > **TLDR : Belgium requires that you own a gambling license to perform gambling services, Under it's recognition that Lootboxes are gambling, it required that game companies acquire such a license to continue selling their lootboxes within the law, the gaming companies refused and pulled their services to avoid being fined for Unlicensed gambling** > > > > Only in Belgium this did shut down Gatcha's and people lost all their accounts and money/time put into the game. I don't think lootboxes or gatcha's (while they involve RNG which is a Gamble in essence as is many other things in life), are a gamble in the traditional legal sense that you would see in a casino which has regulations. The only reason Casino's are regulated is because money is exchanged both ways and while it is entertainment the reality is that those laws aren't really there to protect and regulate the customer they are there so the government gets its share of the profits. The payout of the gamble with lootboxes has no monetary value (sure you could illegally sell your account, but there is no official way to exchange it for money). its only real value is entertainment, just like logging into GW2 , there's no guarantee that mob will give you a precursor when you kill it, but if it does - wow that was fun. If it doesn't should we call for regulation? > > > > Sorry I'd rather have less laws then more, its optional entertainment and doesn't need to be regulated as its not like traditional gambling. > > Sorry, but I have to correct that again, you're Factually Wrong. People did not lose their accounts, or money, or time. Games have not been banned. Sale of a product within that game have been. Guild wars 2 players from Belgium can certify, they can still play, their account is still intact, what they acquired, even through black lion chests before, is still theirs. > > As for the rest of your argument, I wont bother trying to explain facts and sense to a wall. Regardless of the argument, this is not my country. What you want is what you want. What the situation needs is what the situation needs. It ends there. I'm not going to be voting for that law, I'm not an US Citizen. All I can add are established facts, and examples. Past that, it is of literally no concerns to me. > > You still disappoint in term of debate : I expected better than a "Because I dont wanna" and factually wrong deformation of what other stated (You still persist with lootbags when it has been debunked Numerous times that doesn't actually falls into lootbox territory). At this point you're either doing this on purpose, or cannot get out of your loop, either way, I have better things to do than to repeat what I and others have explained, numerous times. Believe what you will. > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > Their have been posters who want to ban them tho. Just a minor correction. > > > > > > Indeed, but that's not what the bill itself is about, therefore those posters are not actually properly informed. > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > You can advertise alchohol? > > > > > > > Sure. What do you think this is?  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, like i said, it's heavily regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly I wouldn't care if they resumed advertising cigarettes as long as people cant smoke around me. Think about why they are regulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone smokes in public as a stranger I get second hand smoke. Someone drinks, they could get in a car and cause an accident, all of those things affect me as a stranger and should be regulated. But gambling? If someone loses 20k dollars how does that affect me? It doesnt. > > > > > > > That someone might be your family, you know. It would affect you then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure why regulations on gambling should even be on par with alcohol or cigarettes. > > > > > > > What are you saying, you've just said few posts above that they should be exactly like alcohol or cigarettes. Was it because you weren't aware that those are regulated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope family being affected isn't the same as a stranger. That's a personal issue. They put tons of added sugar in every food imaginable to get you addicted, fat and cause diabetes and auto immune disorders and yet those arent regulated. They even make manipulative commercials directed at children and I couldnt care less because when some person indulges in sugar (the most addictive substance on earth) it doesnt affect me. And if it affects a family member that indulges, in it, then its on them to moderate themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > A family member that indulges in gambling, or fatty /sugary foods and then that affects me emotionally, is no different then a person who plays sports or joins the military. If something goes wrong then it's a personal issue, not a good excuse to ban those activities outright. > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, what happens when that doesn't happen Specifically to you, but about one for every 10 household ? It's not a personal issue, so it still doesn't need regulation ? > > > > > And again, dont deform what we're saying : Regulate. Not Ban. > > > > > > > > It doesn't affect me. Its no different then if i went and drank water to the point at which I drowned. Should we regulate how much water we give out because I went and did that? Think about my family members? Maybe we should card people to buy water or perhaps tell them that they cant buy more then 1 gallon at a time? No its ridiculous. > > > > > > > > Here's an even better analogy. Video games are addictive just in general. I've decided to play a video game 21 hrs a day 7 days a week. My family is devastated. I believe we should regulate the amount of hours that ANY person can play on all mmo's because i PERSONALLY have no self control and refuse to get any. Instead we need a blanket law that will simply not let anyone log into any mmo for more then 2hrs per day. Think about my family and children? Should we regulate this way? I don't think so... > > > > > > > > Only in this case of regulation of loot boxes it will ban it. They shut numerous Gatcha games down in Belgium and people lost their entire accounts. There were tons of other games that couldn't make up the revenue and simply closed down in protest and again more people lost their enjoyment and accounts all in the name of protecting children whom aren't supervised. Gw2 stopped selling black lion chests, and never replaced it with anything and I'm sure its sales were permanently diminished in Belgium, if they do that here it might be enough to close down the game. > > > > > > A regulation is an Oversight. Something that checks on it, makes sure it follows clear rules. How is that preventing anyone who enjoy this as a past time to continue enjoying it ? Really I do not understand it. Regulation gives you more information about something you partake in. > > > > > > Belgium did not shut those games down, companies themselves refused to regulate and provide the oversight needed for the government to check on them, and Simply closed their services On their own. Not to mention some of those companies actually used the outrage generated and redirected them to the legislation using those very misinterpretations you're using : "They're banning it, we aren't". That was never the case : Companies actually stopped their services before the law was even put in place. Actually I think you're being confused because Belgium specifically banned lootboxes. Belgium actually **bans unlicensed gambling outright**, the only thing it ruled out, was that lootboxes were gambling, which you yourself recognize they are, and pretty much everyone under the sun does. The US **doesn't ban gambling**, therefore lootboxes arent actually at risk of being banned, all that's going to happen is that regulation applied to gambling **-currently, at this very instant-** could Apply to lootboxes. It doesn't state it intend to ban them, at all. Belgium did not ban lootboxes at random, it had Already banned gambling, it Simply ruled, like everyone else, that lootboxes were gambling, and thus it fell Under the same regulation. Belgium is not anti video game. > > > > > > Another thing you clearly dont understand is that black lion chests dont represent a large part of revenue for Guild wars 2 compared to mount skins, outfits, armor skins in general : People farm keys, it's such a common practice it's even recommended to new players. Those that dont farm in such a way buy the keys with gold, which doesn't generate gem revenue for Anet either. The people who spend gems on keys are a minority. That's nowhere near enough to shut down the game, you're overreacting. > > > > > > Here, let me give you an actual example of already implemented self regulation : Nexon owns a game called Mabinogi who is known for it's heavy indulgence on gachapons (so lootboxes). Until recently, they didn't display the percents of rate of acquisition of each individual item in those gachas. When legislations started to show interest in Hawaii, they started to put percents on all their gachas. It didn't stop people buying them, in fact it didn't change much of anything, the difference was that now the rates are clearly expressed in put in Numbers, it's a form of self regulation, but regulation regardless. Did it spell the end of gachapons for that game ? Absolutely not. Did it cave it's earnings ? It's too soon to say, but judging by the market of items acquired from those boxes, being sold by players, the rates are similar to how they were before percents were introduced. What changed however is that players -greatly- appreciated to know what they were paying for, and what their chances realistically are. It also put that specific company much closer to being given a pass, than a company who continues obscuring it's rates. > > > > > > What I'm trying to explain to you is that when a problem becomes endemic enough to be recognized and acknowledged, you need a structure to oversee, monitor and regulate it to avoid it spinning out of control. Currently, there is no such thing, but everyone agrees that gambling rates, particularly amongst the youngests have increased over many years. Something need to check on it, just like any evolving problem, and the industry is Not taking care of it. > > > > > > **TLDR : Belgium requires that you own a gambling license to perform gambling services, Under it's recognition that Lootboxes are gambling, it required that game companies acquire such a license to continue selling their lootboxes within the law, the gaming companies refused and pulled their services to avoid being fined for Unlicensed gambling** > > > > > Sure but this has become a debate about lootboxes in general not only the regulation. > > > > On the quote that gambling has increased do you have a source for that? I've only found that their is a correlation between gambling problems and lootboxes. Not in which direction this correlation goes > > I crossed references between NAFGAH and NCPG websites and reports, as well as articles who quoted those two organisations in particular. Some of it date back to 2016 mind, but in term of statistics, that's still fairly solid material. NAFGAH actually had a piece that compared rates of problem gambling compared to other countries in a similar position, the US apparently ranks fairly high up there. None in particular shows any graphs though, which is what I was really trying to find, and am surprised not to find, usually any such evolution is accurately graphed, but I cant find anything recent, or refering to a year by year progression. To be fair, those reference gambling addiction in General. Lootbox themselves, I simply extrapolated from the politics themselves, which true enough dont share their sources. I Believe it was mentionned during an hearing when the Hawaii governor first tried to tackle the issue with the gaming industry representatives. I do find studies, but they're by the UK government's Gambling commission, so they study their own population, the rise is sharp however : https://www.ft.com/content/7044b142-7313-11e8-aa31-31da4279a601 Even if it doesnt show 2018 and 2019, I seriously doubt the trend would suddenly abate and take a nosedive. > > This shows an excerpt from the Journal of Gambling Studies, which I -think- is US based ? https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Challenge-of-Online-Gambling%3A-The-Effect-of-on-Chóliz/1a3b5d920cd0b3789917ca39b0459cc651b9f1d7 It's older, and stop graphing at 2015, but still shows that upward trend. Lootboxes however still do not appear as a specific item of it, probably because the spotlight was shown more recently. I'd say, studies on -lootboxes- specifically haven't been concluded. Studies on gambling though, there are so here and there, not all of them public though it seems. The "But I don't wanna" mentality is what the industry was hoping to achieve with Belgium. They could have complied and still sell their gamble boxes there but instead they chose to take the loss and remove them themselves, in a brilliant strategic move. They wanted to make Belgium an example to the masses of players who are already hooked. "See, bad Belgium banned lootboxes, I like lootboxes and I don't wanna be like Belgium". This is a distorted version of the truth and it serves them, because now they have an army of angry fans who are perceiving any hint of change to the status quo as threat to their favourite "poison". No lawyer could achieve a defense that fervorous in a court, because this reaction is purely impulse driven. Just like their gambleboxes scheme, the whole Belgium debacle is so insidious that you have to admire them for controlling the narrative so masterfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > The "But I don't wanna" mentality is what the industry was hoping to achieve with Belgium. They could have complied and still sell their gamble boxes there but instead they chose to take the loss and remove them themselves, in a brilliant strategic move. They wanted to make Belgium an example to the masses of players who are already hooked. > > "See, bad Belgium banned lootboxes, I like lootboxes and I don't wanna be like Belgium". This is a distorted version of the truth and it serves them, because now they have an army of angry fans who are perceiving any hint of change to the status quo as threat to their favourite "poison". No lawyer could achieve a defense that fervorous in a court, because this reaction is purely impulse driven. Just like their gambleboxes scheme, the whole Belgium debacle is so insidious that you have to admire them for controlling the narrative so masterfully. Indeed. Moreover, they didn't want to adjust to Belgium, because if they did, there would already be a solution to apply elsewhere - they didn't want Belgium to become an example of regulations working. They didn't want players to know that other solutions might be possible. They'd rather leave a radioactive crater behind. Personally, i'm sure that at least some of the developers in question already have plans on what to do in case such regulations get introduced. They just don't want to implement (or even reveal) those until they absolutely have no other choice anymore. Gambling is as addictive to them as it is to some of the players they exploit. Except in the case of developers it's the income from gambling they are so addicted to, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashantara.8731 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > The difference is that movies _are_ self-regulated, but in case of lootboxes, the industry refuses to self-regulate them in similar way. Yes, if the industry decided to self-regulate and put 21+ stickers and gambling warnings on the games with lootboxes (and gave detailed information about odds in them), probably no more regulations would have been needed (at least in US). That would however impact how those games are sold and advertised (because there are already regulations in the industry about the age restrictions), so the industry so far was unwilling to make that move. And since they don't want to do that themselves, it falls to someone else to regulate it for them. Indeed. And the problem with that is that it is much easier to put a stop on something in general than to differentiate. Basically, the choice comes to "No paid RNG content at all" or "Proceed as usual." While I understand the fun factor of opening lootboxes (I am doing that myself quite often), I would rather go with the former option, though, than with the latter. The problem with it is that, as it is now, a handful of countries are being denied certain content that is not available by other means. Until a law is set in place in the country the game originates from, I believe it would be wise to provide alternatives - or revise that whole sales model from scratch and remove the "gambling" aspect completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaklex.6308 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > I'd imagine if relegation gets too stringent or if they cannot replace the stream of revenue with an equivalent source (because AAA games cost money and just breaking even doesn't cut it), they will simply stop marketing to kids. > > > > There will still be the E for Everyone games and the T for Teens games but a majority of the "juicy" AAA games that kids these days crave might just become MA+. One might say "Ah! you'd cut off a huge demographic and deeper into profits" well, things like Amazon/Steam/digital downloads make it so it may not be important to market games in your brick-and-mortar locations and if kids end up getting their parents to buy whatever games they want, even the MA games, you just push kids to play the same games illegally but no one is going to prosecute a kid for playing a game... > > > > That and the demographic for video games seems to continuously broaden. Games once considered baby/kids focused still appeal to adults+ which could be due to the west infantilizing its citizens (see: politically correct, anti-bullying nanny-state antics or the daycare-like universities being combated now) or just that media itself is so accessible and tailored to the user's desires. > > Technically, we've already seen that trend starting even, most of the well known triple AAA games recently released are Indeed for mature audiences. I dont really know if it's specifically due to those specific concerns though, or if it's Simply where their target demographic really is. > > One thing that would be rather interesting would be to see if Nintendo (a japanese gaming company, thus in a country where the culture of gachapon is promiment and accepted), whose main target audience is generally a Younger age, or at least accepting to all, actually uses lootboxes of a sort. I must profess genuinely not knowing, I dont think so, but there is still a possibility they follow the trend. If they dont, then it'd give a bit more point toward Publishers who are mindful of their target audience when monetizing. > Then again, Nintendo has always been rather on it's own, doing things it's way > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > > There is so much straw in defense of that system that I could fill 3 barns of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The defense for lootboxes amounts to : > > > > > > > -Because you enjoy it > > > > > > > -Because you dont trust the government to stop there > > > > > > > -Because you dont care how it affects others > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The defense against lootboxes amounts to : > > > > > > > -It's based on losing system (Odds are -never- in the customer's favor) > > > > > > > -It's predatory, preys on weak willed people and reinforce their weakness > > > > > > > -It exploit basic psychology against players (sunk cost falacy) > > > > > > > -It is completely unregulated, with no accurate odds displayed in a majority of cases > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont want to bring morality into this, but I kind of have to : The device is with the intent of Exploiting, whether weak willed or not. It exploit a normal person by tempting them, and encourage them to continue spending to get what they want after they've already spent money failing to get it without knowing the odds, and that's without getting into people doing it while misinformed (underaged, or lacking knowledge). It then exploit psychology to elicit a prideful defense of the system based on the idea that since the person sunk so much money in it, they -have- to back it, or risk being made a fool of (aka, owning up to it). It's based on a psychologic trick, similar to social engineering and cons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People arent calling for bans. People are calling for -Limits-. If you cannot admit that limits are good to have in -anything-, I'm sorry to say your country well deserve the problems it's constantly saddled with. Casinos are regulated. TV shows are regulated. Alchohol is regulated. Food is regulated. Schools are regulated. Cars are regulated. And this applies to the US. The only thing that is Not regulated as far as I know are guns (and we all know where that ends up, the news mentions tragedies several times a year, when they dont mention common gun violence every month) and games. One might think regulating games would not be so hard, they're not part of the US constitution are they ? > > > > > > > > > > > > There’s a lot of ‘straw’ in the way you’re portraying those arguments that defend them. > > > > > > > > > > I've literally used Jum's main arguments throughout the thread. I'm perfectly willing to adjust my post, should someone provide a better formulated defense. I dont want to sound unfair, but some of the arguments I've read made me That annoyed, especially considering how nonchallantly they were written. I'm not going to say there arent good arguments to lootboxes, many of them Financial. Lootboxes have an inherent benefit to the company that uses them, which may in turn be used to bolster a game's future content, but that's a -may- at best. It can just be used to fund another product for example. > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to add that as of yet, I've not seen anyone who defend lootbox agree that oversight and regulations are needed, which to me is baffling : Food itself is regulated, it is checked, it can be traced, it has standarts, it has parts of the governments assigned to constantly check on how it's produced/imported/distributed/priced. And thanks to that, you know that when you buy meat, you're not buying cat meat. > > > > > > > > You want to compare gaming to food, that is like comparing apples to oranges...instead you should compare gaming to movies, two forms of entertainment, and the only regulation that movies have is a ratings system...which is not enforced by any government regulation or law. Gaming also has a ratings system in place, and it's not enforced by any government regulation or law...so we can logically say since movies are self-governed with an age restriction and so is gaming, then nothing needs to be done by the government as far as laws or regulations go...that's comparing apples to apples. > > > > > > You're correct in a sense, except that technically, it isn't games that are under scutiny, but a part of games that equals to Something which is regulated differently than games are. Therefore, it infers that indeed, comparing apples to apples is what the government is trying to do : if lootboxes are recognized as gambling, then it should be regulated as such. Again, gambling laws already exist in the US. Whether or not they should is a matter of opinion in the end, none will agree, but that's the logic they're going with, which is sensical. > > > > > > If you want me to explain why in particular I put an emphasis on food in my diatribe, it's because food is Something everyone is familiar with, and is omnipresent. Nobody would want it to be unchecked, for sanitory reasons among other things, It was also one of the easiest example to work with : as I mentionned, when you want to buy meat with an unregulated system, you have no way of knowing where it comes from, what's it's made of, what is in it, and what animal it was, therefore you might just end up buying a package named "Meat" and actually buying cat meat. Obviously Something extreme, but it carried the point I was trying to make that much more effectively : checks are needed in everything, otherwise you end up with loopholes and abuses, sometime with varied degrees of serious consequences. What may seem trivial now to many will end up becoming a much larger issue overtime the later it is adressed. And contrary to many who call for outright bans, that is not what the bill is about, the bill is about transparency, and applying existing regulation to something which falls under it. > > > > The problem most people don't understand when saying loot boxes are like gambling is that we, the U.S., has a legal definition of gambling in the Federal Register, and loot boxes don't match it. I looked it up once before just to confirm it(when the whole Belgian thing came up) and I've kept repeating it every time this comes up in the U.S., The Federal Register, which is a book that contains all Federal regulations has several that are about gambling, but the relevant basically states that in order for a game to be considered gambling it has to have someone put money into it without a chance of getting anything in return...in other words, you don't win something every single time you play the game, that is gambling in it's truest sense. As far as I know all loot boxes would not fall in this category, unless there's a game out there that actually allows someone to buy a loot box with the potential of it being empty, then that would be gambling. So as long as you get something from a BLTC, even if the value is 1/100 of what you paid for it, that still is not legally gambling in the U.S., you are guaranteed to win something, regardless of value. A system like that doesn't need regulation by the government, it doesn't fall under the gambling definition, so they would have to change the definition first and I can't see that happening. It also means this freshman Congressman doesn't even know our own regulations, nor does his staff, otherwise someone would have pointed out to him that he would have to get the definition changed first. > > > > Also, it's not even a bill yet, just a proposal, at this point in time it is nothing more than talk, probably to get some publicity and nothing more from my point of view. > > You're correct again in that it is actually the crux of the debate : Is lootbox actually gambling if you receive Something each time you play, instead of lose when you fail to reach your target goal. One might argue that it would be relatively easy to design a slot machine that cost 10 tokens to play, with a prize ranging from 100 tokens to 1 token. In that particular case, you'd still get Something in return for your investment, it just wouldn't be Something that fits the original investment you made. I think one could say that would still be gambling in that case, since getting the lowest possible reward is not considered "winning", you get a prize Worth less than what what you originally paid in token amounts. I think the debate over lootboxes is around that general gray area. > > You "could" say that was still gambling, but under the current way it's defined(in the U.S.) that would not be gambling, why someone hasn't done that yet I don't know, but I bet you could make even more money running a casino game with machines like that than a regular casino that has a payout from 0 to 100, since you would probably have the odds of the higher payouts at a lower range than the 1 token one...hmm, maybe that's a business idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexxxDelta.1806 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > I'd imagine if relegation gets too stringent or if they cannot replace the stream of revenue with an equivalent source (because AAA games cost money and just breaking even doesn't cut it), they will simply stop marketing to kids. > > > > > > There will still be the E for Everyone games and the T for Teens games but a majority of the "juicy" AAA games that kids these days crave might just become MA+. One might say "Ah! you'd cut off a huge demographic and deeper into profits" well, things like Amazon/Steam/digital downloads make it so it may not be important to market games in your brick-and-mortar locations and if kids end up getting their parents to buy whatever games they want, even the MA games, you just push kids to play the same games illegally but no one is going to prosecute a kid for playing a game... > > > > > > That and the demographic for video games seems to continuously broaden. Games once considered baby/kids focused still appeal to adults+ which could be due to the west infantilizing its citizens (see: politically correct, anti-bullying nanny-state antics or the daycare-like universities being combated now) or just that media itself is so accessible and tailored to the user's desires. > > > > Technically, we've already seen that trend starting even, most of the well known triple AAA games recently released are Indeed for mature audiences. I dont really know if it's specifically due to those specific concerns though, or if it's Simply where their target demographic really is. > > > > One thing that would be rather interesting would be to see if Nintendo (a japanese gaming company, thus in a country where the culture of gachapon is promiment and accepted), whose main target audience is generally a Younger age, or at least accepting to all, actually uses lootboxes of a sort. I must profess genuinely not knowing, I dont think so, but there is still a possibility they follow the trend. If they dont, then it'd give a bit more point toward Publishers who are mindful of their target audience when monetizing. > > Then again, Nintendo has always been rather on it's own, doing things it's way > > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > @"Naxos.2503" said: > > > > > > > > There is so much straw in defense of that system that I could fill 3 barns of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The defense for lootboxes amounts to : > > > > > > > > -Because you enjoy it > > > > > > > > -Because you dont trust the government to stop there > > > > > > > > -Because you dont care how it affects others > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The defense against lootboxes amounts to : > > > > > > > > -It's based on losing system (Odds are -never- in the customer's favor) > > > > > > > > -It's predatory, preys on weak willed people and reinforce their weakness > > > > > > > > -It exploit basic psychology against players (sunk cost falacy) > > > > > > > > -It is completely unregulated, with no accurate odds displayed in a majority of cases > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont want to bring morality into this, but I kind of have to : The device is with the intent of Exploiting, whether weak willed or not. It exploit a normal person by tempting them, and encourage them to continue spending to get what they want after they've already spent money failing to get it without knowing the odds, and that's without getting into people doing it while misinformed (underaged, or lacking knowledge). It then exploit psychology to elicit a prideful defense of the system based on the idea that since the person sunk so much money in it, they -have- to back it, or risk being made a fool of (aka, owning up to it). It's based on a psychologic trick, similar to social engineering and cons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People arent calling for bans. People are calling for -Limits-. If you cannot admit that limits are good to have in -anything-, I'm sorry to say your country well deserve the problems it's constantly saddled with. Casinos are regulated. TV shows are regulated. Alchohol is regulated. Food is regulated. Schools are regulated. Cars are regulated. And this applies to the US. The only thing that is Not regulated as far as I know are guns (and we all know where that ends up, the news mentions tragedies several times a year, when they dont mention common gun violence every month) and games. One might think regulating games would not be so hard, they're not part of the US constitution are they ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There’s a lot of ‘straw’ in the way you’re portraying those arguments that defend them. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've literally used Jum's main arguments throughout the thread. I'm perfectly willing to adjust my post, should someone provide a better formulated defense. I dont want to sound unfair, but some of the arguments I've read made me That annoyed, especially considering how nonchallantly they were written. I'm not going to say there arent good arguments to lootboxes, many of them Financial. Lootboxes have an inherent benefit to the company that uses them, which may in turn be used to bolster a game's future content, but that's a -may- at best. It can just be used to fund another product for example. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to add that as of yet, I've not seen anyone who defend lootbox agree that oversight and regulations are needed, which to me is baffling : Food itself is regulated, it is checked, it can be traced, it has standarts, it has parts of the governments assigned to constantly check on how it's produced/imported/distributed/priced. And thanks to that, you know that when you buy meat, you're not buying cat meat. > > > > > > > > > > You want to compare gaming to food, that is like comparing apples to oranges...instead you should compare gaming to movies, two forms of entertainment, and the only regulation that movies have is a ratings system...which is not enforced by any government regulation or law. Gaming also has a ratings system in place, and it's not enforced by any government regulation or law...so we can logically say since movies are self-governed with an age restriction and so is gaming, then nothing needs to be done by the government as far as laws or regulations go...that's comparing apples to apples. > > > > > > > > You're correct in a sense, except that technically, it isn't games that are under scutiny, but a part of games that equals to Something which is regulated differently than games are. Therefore, it infers that indeed, comparing apples to apples is what the government is trying to do : if lootboxes are recognized as gambling, then it should be regulated as such. Again, gambling laws already exist in the US. Whether or not they should is a matter of opinion in the end, none will agree, but that's the logic they're going with, which is sensical. > > > > > > > > If you want me to explain why in particular I put an emphasis on food in my diatribe, it's because food is Something everyone is familiar with, and is omnipresent. Nobody would want it to be unchecked, for sanitory reasons among other things, It was also one of the easiest example to work with : as I mentionned, when you want to buy meat with an unregulated system, you have no way of knowing where it comes from, what's it's made of, what is in it, and what animal it was, therefore you might just end up buying a package named "Meat" and actually buying cat meat. Obviously Something extreme, but it carried the point I was trying to make that much more effectively : checks are needed in everything, otherwise you end up with loopholes and abuses, sometime with varied degrees of serious consequences. What may seem trivial now to many will end up becoming a much larger issue overtime the later it is adressed. And contrary to many who call for outright bans, that is not what the bill is about, the bill is about transparency, and applying existing regulation to something which falls under it. > > > > > > The problem most people don't understand when saying loot boxes are like gambling is that we, the U.S., has a legal definition of gambling in the Federal Register, and loot boxes don't match it. I looked it up once before just to confirm it(when the whole Belgian thing came up) and I've kept repeating it every time this comes up in the U.S., The Federal Register, which is a book that contains all Federal regulations has several that are about gambling, but the relevant basically states that in order for a game to be considered gambling it has to have someone put money into it without a chance of getting anything in return...in other words, you don't win something every single time you play the game, that is gambling in it's truest sense. As far as I know all loot boxes would not fall in this category, unless there's a game out there that actually allows someone to buy a loot box with the potential of it being empty, then that would be gambling. So as long as you get something from a BLTC, even if the value is 1/100 of what you paid for it, that still is not legally gambling in the U.S., you are guaranteed to win something, regardless of value. A system like that doesn't need regulation by the government, it doesn't fall under the gambling definition, so they would have to change the definition first and I can't see that happening. It also means this freshman Congressman doesn't even know our own regulations, nor does his staff, otherwise someone would have pointed out to him that he would have to get the definition changed first. > > > > > > Also, it's not even a bill yet, just a proposal, at this point in time it is nothing more than talk, probably to get some publicity and nothing more from my point of view. > > > > You're correct again in that it is actually the crux of the debate : Is lootbox actually gambling if you receive Something each time you play, instead of lose when you fail to reach your target goal. One might argue that it would be relatively easy to design a slot machine that cost 10 tokens to play, with a prize ranging from 100 tokens to 1 token. In that particular case, you'd still get Something in return for your investment, it just wouldn't be Something that fits the original investment you made. I think one could say that would still be gambling in that case, since getting the lowest possible reward is not considered "winning", you get a prize Worth less than what what you originally paid in token amounts. I think the debate over lootboxes is around that general gray area. > > > > > > You "could" say that was still gambling, but under the current way it's defined(in the U.S.) that would not be gambling, why someone hasn't done that yet I don't know, but I bet you could make even more money running a casino game with machines like that than a regular casino that has a payout from 0 to 100, since you would probably have the odds of the higher payouts at a lower range than the 1 token one...hmm, maybe that's a business idea. Maybe my google-fu is failing but can you please link me an official ruling by a U.S **government** agency stating that lootboxes don't fit the current legal definition of gambling there? I would think that if it was set in stone, senators wouldn't bother proposing bills about it. Unless the good federal lawmakers of old were so far-sighted, that they predicted the emergence of new tech and the legally grey areas it introduces of course. Hard mode : Don't link me anything related to ESRB or ESA, I'm already aware of those two **private** organizations and their perfectly unbiased stance on the issue. The fact that they are both ran by prominent gaming industry lobbyists is purely coincidental of course. I mean, why wouldn't I believe a wolf, dressed as a shepherd, trying to convince the poor sheep that wolves are totally innocent herbivores? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erasculio.2914 Posted May 11, 2019 Author Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > Maybe my google-fu is failing but can you please link me an official ruling by a U.S **government** agency stating that lootboxes don't fit the current legal definition of gambling there? I would think that if it was set in stone, senators wouldn't bother proposing bills about it. I don't think that's the real issue. If looboxes did fit the current legal definition of gambling, senators probably **wouldn't** propose bills about them - there are already laws about gambling regulating it. I think the issue is that, while lootboxes don't fit the legal definition of gambling, people are (slowly) realizing they're as deleterious and predatory as gambling, and thus require new laws regulating them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexxxDelta.1806 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Erasculio.2914" said: > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > Maybe my google-fu is failing but can you please link me an official ruling by a U.S **government** agency stating that lootboxes don't fit the current legal definition of gambling there? I would think that if it was set in stone, senators wouldn't bother proposing bills about it. > > I don't think that's the real issue. > > If looboxes did fit the current legal definition of gambling, senators probably **wouldn't** propose bills about them - there are already laws about gambling regulating it. > > I think the issue is that, while lootboxes don't fit the legal definition of gambling, people are (slowly) realizing they're as deleterious and predatory as gambling, and thus require new laws regulating them. > > That was essentially my point with this. The argument about the legal definition is being parroted to somehow prove that lootboxes aren't gambling, which doesn't make sense. Of course any recent developments wont fit age old legal definitions but until new rulings are made, it's a non-argument. That's the very reason those bill proposals exist and we are debating them in this thread. The ideal solution would be self-regulation as governments often tend to be haphazard and lack subtlety in their interventions. But as I said above, I can't ever see this happening. This thing is simply too profitable and the industry will fight to the death to defend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melandru.3876 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"anninke.7469" said: > Uhm... and what about Dye Kits? Those are (many of them) cash shop RNG stuff either, would they be affected? And should they? dye kits, black lion keys and mount skins (minus mount selection license, and the 2k mount skin gems) are allready banned in belgium https://www.pcgamer.com/guild-wars-2-players-in-belgium-can-no-longer-buy-gems-from-the-gem-store/ so yes, anet does have to tailor in to the laws of the countries they allow their game to be played in better cutt off profit (rng gambling) then no profit at all (unable to sell expansions/game/whatever) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrizzFreston.5290 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 I think labeling lootboxes or RNG packs more clearly and mostly, more honestly, would go a long way. Along with offering other options. Something along the lines of a red text saying: "Be aware that you might not get what you want by buying this item. Please consider your purchase carefully, to avoid disappointment" Maybe a little on the nose, sure, and it probably should be clear regardless, but it might help. Other options would be to limit the amount of RNG you can buy each month or offer a direct buy price alongside it. Ofcourse, GW2 has alot of those options as it is, which should be brought into the spotlight. In general, imo any regulation that promotes smarter behaviour or let people decide more intelligently, is favourable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrizzFreston.5290 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 I think labeling lootboxes or RNG packs more clearly and mostly, more honestly, would go a long way. Along with offering other options. Something along the lines of a red text saying: "Be aware that you might not get what you want by buying this item. Please consider your purchase carefully, to avoid disappointment" Maybe a little on the nose, sure, and it probably should be clear regardless, but it might help. Other options would be to limit the amount of RNG you can buy each month or offer a direct buy price alongside it. Ofcourse, GW2 has alot of those options as it is, which should be brought into the spotlight. In general, imo any regulation that promotes smarter behaviour or let people decide more intelligently, is favourable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > The "But I don't wanna" mentality is what the industry was hoping to achieve with Belgium. They could have complied and still sell their gamble boxes there but instead they chose to take the loss and remove them themselves, in a brilliant strategic move. They wanted to make Belgium an example to the masses of players who are already hooked. > > > > "See, bad Belgium banned lootboxes, I like lootboxes and I don't wanna be like Belgium". This is a distorted version of the truth and it serves them, because now they have an army of angry fans who are perceiving any hint of change to the status quo as threat to their favourite "poison". No lawyer could achieve a defense that fervorous in a court, because this reaction is purely impulse driven. Just like their gambleboxes scheme, the whole Belgium debacle is so insidious that you have to admire them for controlling the narrative so masterfully. > Indeed. Moreover, they didn't want to adjust to Belgium, because if they did, there would already be a solution to apply elsewhere - they didn't want Belgium to become an example of regulations working. They didn't want players to know that other solutions might be possible. They'd rather leave a radioactive crater behind. > > Personally, i'm sure that at least some of the developers in question already have plans on what to do in case such regulations get introduced. They just don't want to implement (or even reveal) those until they absolutely have no other choice anymore. Gambling is as addictive to them as it is to some of the players they exploit. Except in the case of developers it's the income from gambling they are so addicted to, of course. > These two insights are right on. The gaming industry is going to do anything it can to keep the cash cow alive. They'll hold onto loot boxes (and any other money-grubbing tactic) as long as they can. Over the years I've seen evidence that a lot of gamers treat developers almost like friends. The people who conceive of and develop the games may even have the best interests of gamers in mind. This is not true of the people who run the gaming _business_, if it ever was. Those people are out to take us for as much money as they can, as often as they can, with as little expense as they can get away with. Over time, the result has been that value-for-money in games is becoming increasingly rare in the gaming industry. Consumers could stop this, but that's highly unlikely. It would not be easy. Businesses will only produce value-for-money if its the only way they can make money. A grass roots gamer revolution would also be painful. We might have to make do with an old game for far longer than we want, or even do without a game for an extended period. Finally, gamers would have to act in concert to have that kind of an impact. That is less likely than that the horse will sing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said: > In general, imo any regulation that promotes smarter behaviour or let people decide more intelligently, is favourable. > > Your suggestion promotes LESS smart behavior (as you're seeking more ways to take the thinking out of purchasing when, in fact, EVERY purchase you make you should be thinking critically about your income, budget and level of necessity of the product) and takes away decision from people (allowing the individual to decide their own level of impulse buying requires no government regulation). I don't care one way or the other about lootboxes as I'll buy them when I want them and ignore them when I don't care but individuals using positive flowery language to advance their agendas is far too common in politics today. Basically, people saying how good or moral or how much improved change something can be while making up data or secretly pressing bills that are the opposite their constituents voted for them for. The whole "For the children!!" trope is so overly used. Why not just say it could promote better end products if the whole "scheming players into low-chance loot reward traps" option were removed from the table to create more game-centric ways of getting the player to get the same loot? Because all the other pleasantries presented? People see through that: you just want your shinies without funneling money away for them lol. Basically, people being cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now