Will Black Lion Chests be forbidden in the USA?

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"Maikimaik.1974" said:

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > Why dont players simply learn to control their behaviors instead of passing laws that needlessly impact everyone's enjoyment. I guess the message is if you enjoy gambling or RNG then theres just no place for that... great. I dont agree i think if you dont like it just dont participate in it, watch children and learn to say no to them and learn to control impulses rather then project laws on everyone that arent needed and are unwanted.

>

> Okay you're obviusly not a psychologist. At least I hope you're not, just imagine going to therapy because you're addicted to something and the therapist would just say: "well it's your fault for not having any self control, sucks to be you."

 

This isnt a therapy session lol. Sorry if you dont want to accept self control. If videogames are so addictive and filled with such terrible vices such as gambling maybe parents should watch their kids and not buy them videogames or give them their credit card.

 

It's up to the parent to regulate their child's behavior. We don't need laws that needlessly penalize and oppress everyone, simply because a few parents refuse to parent.

 

[Ensign.2189]

> @"Ben K.6238" said:

> They could put them on the store for $40 and I'd still think about it if I really wanted that item. I haven't actually seen a Black Lion chest exclusive that I've wanted yet though, so it's a bit of a hypothetical at this point.

 

Sure, but they wouldn't make enough off of it at that price point to make it worth the effort.

 

> It does, unfortunately, seem like the best sources of revenue are either selling a small numbers of items for a high price, or selling a whole lot of random trash for quite cheap.

 

They need to offer a variety of goods to provide sufficient value to both small causal spenders and to the big spenders. Chests are a convenient offering because they appeal to both and will scale up with what people want to spend.

 

It is not an easy product to replace, for sure.

 

 

[Ensign.2189]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

 

> Nah, if anything, casinos are continuously lobbying for making gambling restrictions _easier_. They just want them to apply to everyone in the business. They wouldn't want any potential competition to be able to operate _without the very same restrictions they have to face_, after all. No sane person would want that.

 

Exactly. For instance, Belgian casinos are very much in support of the rule that any online gambling platform operator also owns and operates a physical casino within Belgium. They have made absolutely sure that totally reasonable rule applies to everyone in the industry, including A.Net!

 

All A.Net would need to do to comply with Belgian gambling regulations is to open a physical casino in Belgium. After all that is the same restriction all the casinos have to face, and no sane person would want to allow new entrants to operate without the same restrictions.

 

 

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

> @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> > @"Neural.1824" said:

> > Oh noes.. game companies might be forced to focus on retaining customers and making money through the quality of their game, not gimmicks! The horror!

>

> So...you really think that if profits are in danger, the big corporations' first impulse will be "We must make our game more awesome, stat! Hire more and better devs!"

>

> As opposed to "RNG boxes are illegal, but Pay To Win items are perfectly legal as long as people can see the actual price. So if someone wants to do an extra 10% damage, they need to buy our Gem Store Sword Enchantment. And/or Axe Enchantment. And/or Bow Enchantment. Oh, and let's do a half-kittened roll-out of fifty new specs and races, just because it will force people who want to try them out to buy more character slots. And let's make new collections with a hundred things you have to hold onto at once to sell more bank and bag slots. And debugging doesn't bring in any profit, so let's slash the support team and only bother with game-breaking bugs that the majority of players experience. And let's sell a Premium Mount Subscription for 10000 gems where you get the next six premium mounts plus a special mount that nobody can get any other way. And let's start creating new maps with a pay wall. And let's have achievements with titles and special armors and unique item rewards that you earn based on how much you spend in real cash."

 

Well since it's a free market, they are free to sell their P2W kitten and overpriced 10000 virtual cash offerings and the customers are free to promptly ignore them. The only reason lootboxes have gone under the radar for so long is that they are really sneaky concerning their true nature. P2W mechanics, like the ones you describe and overpriced bundles don't have that luxury, you see them for what they are. Also it's interesting you are mentioning paywalled content, especially after recent news concerning EA's shareholder conference. Apparently they intend to move away from paywalls in their live-service games, after Apex's success and Anthem's colossal failure, they see F2P as a more viable option.

 

I also doubt their first impulse would be to better their products but this is where we, the consumers come in. "Vote with your wallet" is not enough anymore, this is the age of information and media disasters like SW Battlefront make those industry giants sweat. If their reaction is to double down on such practices, then they better be ready to take the heat. Looking at recent earning reports(EA, Activision), it doesn't seem like they are.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

Double post

[Maikimaik.1974]

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> This isnt a therapy session lol. Sorry if you dont want to accept self control. If videogames are so addictive and filled with such terrible vices such as gambling maybe parents should watch their kids and not buy them videogames or give them their credit card.

>

> It's up to the parent to regulate their child's behavior. We don't need laws that needlessly penalize and oppress everyone, simply because a few parents refuse to parent.

 

Oh lord.

 

 

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"Ensign.2189" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

>

> > Nah, if anything, casinos are continuously lobbying for making gambling restrictions _easier_. They just want them to apply to everyone in the business. They wouldn't want any potential competition to be able to operate _without the very same restrictions they have to face_, after all. No sane person would want that.

>

> Exactly. For instance, Belgian casinos are very much in support of the rule that any online gambling platform operator also owns and operates a physical casino within Belgium. They have made absolutely sure that totally reasonable rule applies to everyone in the industry, including A.Net!

>

> All A.Net would need to do to comply with Belgian gambling regulations is to open a physical casino in Belgium. After all that is the same restriction all the casinos have to face, and no sane person would want to allow new entrants to operate without the same restrictions.

>

>

 

Sarcasm at it's finest, I wonder how many will catch on to it. As for all of my previous statements, they haven't even been on topic lately so I'm ending the discussion with @Maikimaik.1974 and @Eekasqueak.7850. The original topic was will BLTC be forbidden in the U.S... and my opinion is no, they won't, this will proposal will go nowhere.

[Tiviana.2650]

> @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

>

> > What I often wonder is, "If it costs so much more to make games these days, why don't developers just charge more for the games?" Is it because they think people would not pay? Or, is it because developers are moving toward a higher-profit model wherein they produce bare-minimum games and use tactics (like loot-boxes, or leaving stuff out of games and selling it soon after release), to obtain profit. Make a piece-of-kitten game saves on development costs, nickel-and-dime the consumer to make the most revenue. As long as consumers don't demand more, that's what we're likely to get.

>

> I agree with pretty much everything you wrote but I just wanted to add to the point about charging more for games. It's not like the 60$ + expansions model doesn't work anymore. There are devs, even AAA, who still follow it and have massive success with it, CD Project Red for example. It is perfectly sustainable but most AAA studios are being practically ran by shareholders at this point. And those people (who often have nothing to do with gaming) won't settle for _just_ making money, they want _all_ the money. Take Blizzard and WoW for example. That game, being the genre leader it is, was perfectly sustainable with its sub + paid xpacs model for many years. But when Blizzard realized the golden goose that is MtX they added a cash store on top. It's not a matter of sustainability anymore but pure greed instead, although that's not exclusive to the gaming industry.

>

>

 

Umm i played wow for years the cash shop is nothing like other games. Its some mounts and pets, a few cosmetic helms. The great thing about that model is you get hundreds of mounts pets wardrobe skins already included in the game without ever having to spend a dime in the shop. Of all the games with a cash shop or store wow is the least greedy and predatory of them all. I get it people like to bag on other games in the forums, they bag on gw2 over at wow. But honestly its all salt all the way around both games have their pros and cons.

[Naxos.2503]

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) corporations (Capitalism--- I mean Tax evasion Ho !) and games. One might think regulating games would not be so hard, they're not part of the US constitution are they ?

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"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.

[Ben K.6238]

> @"Ensign.2189" said:

> > @"Ben K.6238" said:

> > They could put them on the store for $40 and I'd still think about it if I really wanted that item. I haven't actually seen a Black Lion chest exclusive that I've wanted yet though, so it's a bit of a hypothetical at this point.

>

> Sure, but they wouldn't make enough off of it at that price point to make it worth the effort.

 

That's what I always thought, but I've seen other games make a surprising number of MTX sales at that price point. It does price a lot of people out of the market but somehow the "whales" made up for it in those cases. Same thing going on with the premium mount skins I guess.

 

> > It does, unfortunately, seem like the best sources of revenue are either selling a small numbers of items for a high price, or selling a whole lot of random trash for quite cheap.

>

> They need to offer a variety of goods to provide sufficient value to both small causal spenders and to the big spenders. Chests are a convenient offering because they appeal to both and will scale up with what people want to spend.

>

> It is not an easy product to replace, for sure.

 

Right. I have seen lootboxes implemented better though, and I think I might prefer ESO's system a little more. The downside is you never actually get anything good from them because the drop rate is so bad, but the upside is you can trade basically all of it for tokens, which you can then trade for anything in the drop list. It means you can work out an average for how many tokens you'll get per box, and that gives you a maximum price. It's usually pretty high, but it means you'll always get what you wanted in the end.

 

GW2 has some of the same ideas, but lacks a way to convert the things you don't want into things you do. The exchange rate on that is always dismal but it simply feels better to be able to trade in the junk you'll never use, even if only for 5-10 dungeon tokens for example.

[Naxos.2503]

> @"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.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Ensign.2189" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

>

> > Nah, if anything, casinos are continuously lobbying for making gambling restrictions _easier_. They just want them to apply to everyone in the business. They wouldn't want any potential competition to be able to operate _without the very same restrictions they have to face_, after all. No sane person would want that.

>

> Exactly. For instance, Belgian casinos are very much in support of the rule that any online gambling platform operator also owns and operates a physical casino within Belgium. They have made absolutely sure that totally reasonable rule applies to everyone in the industry, including A.Net!

That's not what "physical presence" means, you know. Do not base your understanding of laws on shallow reading of a mention of part of it.

 

And as for belgian casinos lobbying for that law change and being in favour of it...

Remember, that now the regulation puts a hard limit on the number of casino licences (for each individual casino, that is, not just for the operating venue). So, at the same time there can be only 9 casinos in Belgium. Similar restrictions apply to betting (180 licences) and arcade (34 licences) sites. That's not the numbers that existed before the law change. Not all interested parties made the cut. Additionally, all major casinos already have ties with some offcountry money (in fact, from what i understand, out of the 9 online casino licence holders, only one is belgian).

 

There's also that little matter of advertising ban, which is soo loved by everyone.

 

Yeah, definitely, the current restrictive rights are a consequence of Belgian casinos' lobbying [/sarcasm]

 

(not to mention, the gaming commission is considering lately repealing the physical location requirement, as they themselves think it may be a bit obsolete in the modern days)

 

> All A.Net would need to do to comply with Belgian gambling regulations is to open a physical casino in Belgium.

No, they wouldn't. As i said before, you really need to read laws more carefully.

 

 

[Josiah.2967]

I think paying to gamble should be outlawed. Younger and younger people are developing gambling problems as a result of such practices. We need to put an ethical stop to this.

 

Heroes of the Storm already made this change. The player base benefit. They had an uptick. Arennet would get more of my money if I knew what I was getting. I don't mind random stuff you get in game, paying for it is where we should draw the line.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"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) corporations (Capitalism--- I mean Tax evasion Ho !) and games. One might think regulating games would not be so hard, they're not part of the US constitution are they ?

 

This sounds like the basis of all capitalism, one entity trying to convince an unwitting customer through manipulative methods in order to (prey upon) or entice the customer into parting with their money in order to buy a product to the financial benefit of the entity using manipulating tactics.

 

As far as limits go, we all know they dont stop there and gambling isnt hurting anyone with no self control. You can lose self control with ANYTHING and regulating similar addictive products, cigarettes, alchohol, drugs have met with spectacular failure, historically. So no, I dont think they should regulate products in this manner. Now If the product contains lead or is radioactive, then sure. But something like gambling? give me a break..

[Tiviana.2650]

Here is my take on this. You acquire the chests ingame, the ability to open them should be included in the game.....and there is a way of getting keys ingame albeit slow. The thing becomes a lootbox/gamble/ predatory practice when you go outside of ingame content and pay to get keys to open something that may or may not have something in it that is listed. If they removed the selling of keys and just let keys be from the personal story and random drops, then there is no lootbox/gambling/predatory practice involved therefore no regulation is needed. But its true that the way to manipulate people is to throw all these ingame lootboxes at them, and now they want keys to open all of them..hence sell keys. It is kinda sketchy because whether or not you realize it, your brain is being influenced to buy and see what you get in the chests.

[Naxos.2503]

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" 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) corporations (Capitalism--- I mean Tax evasion Ho !) and games. One might think regulating games would not be so hard, they're not part of the US constitution are they ?

>

> This sounds like the basis of all capitalism, one entity trying to convince an unwitting customer through manipulative methods in order to (prey upon) or entice the customer into parting with their money in order to buy a product to the financial benefit of the entity using manipulating tactics.

>

> As far as limits go, we all know they dont stop there and gambling isnt hurting anyone with no self control. You can lose self control with ANYTHING and regulating similar addictive products, cigarettes, alchohol, drugs have met with spectacular failure, historically. So no, I dont think they should regulate products in this manner. Now If the product contains lead or is radioactive, then sure. But something like gambling? give me a break..

 

A cynical view of capitalism is not capitalism. Capitalism doesn't rely on con tactics to prosper. Capitalism relies on a profitable exchange of goods and services based on wants and needs, and the values imparted by two parties. When an employer tells you he's paying X dollars an hour for a specific job, you're exchanging your workforce for their capital. When you go to the grocery with your capital to acquire food, you exchange X dollars for a bag of produce. That's capitalism. Notice that in both cases, the amount of dollars and product/workforce must be agreed for in advance. It is -fixed-. Gambling is actually far from capitalism in that sense. Capitalism doesn't stop there of course, but if there is one element that actually Doesn't fit capitalism, it would be gambling. The closest you can get to gambling when it comes to capitalism is Investment, and it works Quite differently. When you invest in a brand or product, you fund them with personal funds in order for them to grow in value overtime before you get your investment returned. The outcome of this happening is a gamble, but not one that the company invested in -controls-. Whether an investment succeeds or fails depends on outside factors (other companies, Currency value, competition). Those are factors that are not apparent in gambling. The fact is : the house rigs the odds at it's discretion, always has and Always will. Investments do not work like that, unless they're -cons- which are ilegal.

[Tiviana.2650]

> @"Naxos.2503" said:

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" 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) corporations (Capitalism--- I mean Tax evasion Ho !) and games. One might think regulating games would not be so hard, they're not part of the US constitution are they ?

> >

> > This sounds like the basis of all capitalism, one entity trying to convince an unwitting customer through manipulative methods in order to (prey upon) or entice the customer into parting with their money in order to buy a product to the financial benefit of the entity using manipulating tactics.

> >

> > As far as limits go, we all know they dont stop there and gambling isnt hurting anyone with no self control. You can lose self control with ANYTHING and regulating similar addictive products, cigarettes, alchohol, drugs have met with spectacular failure, historically. So no, I dont think they should regulate products in this manner. Now If the product contains lead or is radioactive, then sure. But something like gambling? give me a break..

>

> A cynical view of capitalism is not capitalism. Capitalism doesn't rely on con tactics to prosper. Capitalism relies on a profitable exchange of goods and services based on wants and needs, and the values imparted by two parties. When an employer tells you he's paying X dollars an hour for a specific job, you're exchanging your workforce for their capitalism. When you go to the grocery with your capital to acquire food, you exchange X dollars for a bag of produce. That's capital. Notice that in both cases, the amount of dollars and product/workface must be agreed for in advance. It is -fixed-. Gambling is actually far from capitalism in that sense. Capitalism doesn't stop there of course, but if there is one element that actually Doesn't fit capitalism, it would be gambling. The closest you can get to gambling when it comes to capitalism is Investment, and it works Quite differently. When you invest in a brand or product, you fund them with personal funds in order for them to grow in value overtime before you get your investment returned. The outcome of this happening is a gamble, but not one that the company invested in -controls-. Whether an investment succeeds or fails depends on outside factors (other companies, Currency value, competition). Those are factors that are not apparent in gambling. The fact is : the house rigs the odds at it's discretion, always has and Always will. Investments do not work like that, unless they're -cons- which are ilegal.

 

true words.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> This sounds like the basis of all capitalism, one entity trying to convince an unwitting customer through manipulative methods in order to (prey upon) or entice the customer into parting with their money in order to buy a product to the financial benefit of the entity using manipulating tactics.

Not quite. What ou're talking about is not capitalism per se, but something called predatory capitalism. Notice, how predatory capitalism is generally considered to be bad, and something that actually _does_ need regulations. Unregulated capitalism _is_ bad, and if left alone eventually and unavoidably damages the community at large. This has been proved beyond doubt many times over throughout human history.

 

> As far as limits go, we all know they dont stop there and gambling isnt hurting anyone with no self control. You can lose self control with ANYTHING and regulating similar addictive products, cigarettes, alchohol, drugs have met with spectacular failure, historically.

All of the products you mentioned _are_ heavily regulated now, if you haven't noticed. The world isn't worse for it.

 

> So no, I dont think they should regulate products in this manner. Now If the product contains lead or is radioactive, then sure.

Why? People should have enough self-control and awareness to check for things like that after all. If their get poisoned, it's their own fault. [/sarcasm]

(before you start shouting, notice that is exactly your own argument, just applied to the food instead of gambling).

 

 

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

> @"Tiviana.2650" said:

> > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> >

> > > What I often wonder is, "If it costs so much more to make games these days, why don't developers just charge more for the games?" Is it because they think people would not pay? Or, is it because developers are moving toward a higher-profit model wherein they produce bare-minimum games and use tactics (like loot-boxes, or leaving stuff out of games and selling it soon after release), to obtain profit. Make a piece-of-kitten game saves on development costs, nickel-and-dime the consumer to make the most revenue. As long as consumers don't demand more, that's what we're likely to get.

> >

> > I agree with pretty much everything you wrote but I just wanted to add to the point about charging more for games. It's not like the 60$ + expansions model doesn't work anymore. There are devs, even AAA, who still follow it and have massive success with it, CD Project Red for example. It is perfectly sustainable but most AAA studios are being practically ran by shareholders at this point. And those people (who often have nothing to do with gaming) won't settle for _just_ making money, they want _all_ the money. Take Blizzard and WoW for example. That game, being the genre leader it is, was perfectly sustainable with its sub + paid xpacs model for many years. But when Blizzard realized the golden goose that is MtX they added a cash store on top. It's not a matter of sustainability anymore but pure greed instead, although that's not exclusive to the gaming industry.

> >

> >

>

> Umm i played wow for years the cash shop is nothing like other games. Its some mounts and pets, a few cosmetic helms. The great thing about that model is you get hundreds of mounts pets wardrobe skins already included in the game without ever having to spend a dime in the shop. Of all the games with a cash shop or store wow is the least greedy and predatory of them all. I get it people like to bag on other games in the forums, they bag on gw2 over at wow. But honestly its all salt all the way around both games have their pros and cons.

 

You missed the point, I didn't comment on the quality of its store or if it's p2w or not. The point was that WoW was perfectly sustainable and profitable with its original model. But when Blizzard saw the insane amount of profit generated from microtransactions in other f2p mmos at the time, they wanted in too. Since WoW is definitely not a f2p mmo it wasn't about sustainability anymore but strictly about maximizing profit.

 

It's more a comment about the mindset of the industry than throwing shade at WoW, Blizzard is hardly alone in that and not even the most egregious. At least WoW and its xpacs were finished products, nowdays we can't even have that...

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Naxos.2503" said:

 

> 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.

 

I don't understand why people equate this to food. I have to eat food to live. I don't have to buy loot boxes to live. The difference here is the have to. If there is a have to then there is more of a case of regulation. I am in agreement that regulations typically aim to make things safer and quite justified in spots and are needed. Not feeling it here. Can't talk to all the games out there but been in a few so far. The consumer is the oversight in this case. Their authority is their wallet. I think that's more of why you are seeing less of people saying well I could see some, because all the tools are already in place. Plus some additional resistance is in knowing that there are a lot of issues out there that need more time and attention than this that aren't being addressed and it can be frustrating to see government focus on this when so much else needs time and attention. People are drinking contaminated water. Water is a must have, why is that even a thing, because regulation is needed there. Don't get me wrong I am not giving business's any free outs but we are acting like this is a pharmaceutical company that is providing live saving drugs and playing a guess the bottle game with you. We should all be helping people with addictions if they want it and make sure there are resources for them, but for the majority of people, own up to your actions.

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2019-05-06/contaminated-water-from-teflon-chemical-found-in-43-states-report-finds

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > This sounds like the basis of all capitalism, one entity trying to convince an unwitting customer through manipulative methods in order to (prey upon) or entice the customer into parting with their money in order to buy a product to the financial benefit of the entity using manipulating tactics.

> Not quite. What ou're talking about is not capitalism per se, but something called predatory capitalism. Notice, how predatory capitalism is generally considered to be bad, and something that actually _does_ need regulations. Unregulated capitalism _is_ bad, and if left alone eventually and unavoidably damages the community at large. This has been proved beyond doubt many times over throughout human history.

>

> > As far as limits go, we all know they dont stop there and gambling isnt hurting anyone with no self control. You can lose self control with ANYTHING and regulating similar addictive products, cigarettes, alchohol, drugs have met with spectacular failure, historically.

> All of the products you mentioned _are_ heavily regulated now, if you haven't noticed. The world isn't worse for it.

>

> > So no, I dont think they should regulate products in this manner. Now If the product contains lead or is radioactive, then sure.

> Why? People should have enough self-control and awareness to check for things like that after all. If their get poisoned, it's their own fault. [/sarcasm]

> (before you start shouting, notice that is exactly your own argument, just applied to the food instead of gambling).

>

>

 

You need food to live, gambling is optional as are cigarettes and alcohol.

 

It's like saying some people out there are addicted to alcohol therefore nobody should have it and we should shut it down. They shouldnt be allowed to advertise it because that's manipulative and because children exist, they might want it, so it's clearly predatory. Prohibition anyone?

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > This sounds like the basis of all capitalism, one entity trying to convince an unwitting customer through manipulative methods in order to (prey upon) or entice the customer into parting with their money in order to buy a product to the financial benefit of the entity using manipulating tactics.

> > Not quite. What ou're talking about is not capitalism per se, but something called predatory capitalism. Notice, how predatory capitalism is generally considered to be bad, and something that actually _does_ need regulations. Unregulated capitalism _is_ bad, and if left alone eventually and unavoidably damages the community at large. This has been proved beyond doubt many times over throughout human history.

> >

> > > As far as limits go, we all know they dont stop there and gambling isnt hurting anyone with no self control. You can lose self control with ANYTHING and regulating similar addictive products, cigarettes, alchohol, drugs have met with spectacular failure, historically.

> > All of the products you mentioned _are_ heavily regulated now, if you haven't noticed. The world isn't worse for it.

> >

> > > So no, I dont think they should regulate products in this manner. Now If the product contains lead or is radioactive, then sure.

> > Why? People should have enough self-control and awareness to check for things like that after all. If their get poisoned, it's their own fault. [/sarcasm]

> > (before you start shouting, notice that is exactly your own argument, just applied to the food instead of gambling).

> >

> >

>

> You need food to live, gambling is optional as are cigarettes and alcohol.

>

> It's like saying some people out there are addicted to alcohol therefore nobody should have it and we should shut it down. They shouldnt be allowed to advertise it because that's manipulative and because children exist, they might want it, so it's clearly predatory. Prohibition anyone?

 

Last time I checked you couldn't sell alcohol to kids. If we are to use your analogy, then lootboxes should be banned for people under the age of 18/21 right?

 

I'm fine with that...

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > This sounds like the basis of all capitalism, one entity trying to convince an unwitting customer through manipulative methods in order to (prey upon) or entice the customer into parting with their money in order to buy a product to the financial benefit of the entity using manipulating tactics.

> > > Not quite. What ou're talking about is not capitalism per se, but something called predatory capitalism. Notice, how predatory capitalism is generally considered to be bad, and something that actually _does_ need regulations. Unregulated capitalism _is_ bad, and if left alone eventually and unavoidably damages the community at large. This has been proved beyond doubt many times over throughout human history.

> > >

> > > > As far as limits go, we all know they dont stop there and gambling isnt hurting anyone with no self control. You can lose self control with ANYTHING and regulating similar addictive products, cigarettes, alchohol, drugs have met with spectacular failure, historically.

> > > All of the products you mentioned _are_ heavily regulated now, if you haven't noticed. The world isn't worse for it.

> > >

> > > > So no, I dont think they should regulate products in this manner. Now If the product contains lead or is radioactive, then sure.

> > > Why? People should have enough self-control and awareness to check for things like that after all. If their get poisoned, it's their own fault. [/sarcasm]

> > > (before you start shouting, notice that is exactly your own argument, just applied to the food instead of gambling).

> > >

> > >

> >

> > You need food to live, gambling is optional as are cigarettes and alcohol.

> >

> > It's like saying some people out there are addicted to alcohol therefore nobody should have it and we should shut it down. They shouldnt be allowed to advertise it because that's manipulative and because children exist, they might want it, so it's clearly predatory. Prohibition anyone?

>

> Last time I checked you couldn't sell alcohol to kids. If we are to use your analogy, then lootboxes should be banned for people under the age of 18/21 right?

>

> I'm fine with that...

 

Kids cant buy it without a credit card. Cant get a credit card of you're not 18.

 

If we want to hold people accountable hold the parents accountable. If lootboxes are true gambling, which I dont think they are. Then parents should be arrested for not watching their kids or for willingly giving them a credit card to use for gambling. That's what would happen to a parent if they took their kid to a casino in vegas to gamble.

[Maikimaik.1974]

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > This sounds like the basis of all capitalism, one entity trying to convince an unwitting customer through manipulative methods in order to (prey upon) or entice the customer into parting with their money in order to buy a product to the financial benefit of the entity using manipulating tactics.

> > Not quite. What ou're talking about is not capitalism per se, but something called predatory capitalism. Notice, how predatory capitalism is generally considered to be bad, and something that actually _does_ need regulations. Unregulated capitalism _is_ bad, and if left alone eventually and unavoidably damages the community at large. This has been proved beyond doubt many times over throughout human history.

> >

> > > As far as limits go, we all know they dont stop there and gambling isnt hurting anyone with no self control. You can lose self control with ANYTHING and regulating similar addictive products, cigarettes, alchohol, drugs have met with spectacular failure, historically.

> > All of the products you mentioned _are_ heavily regulated now, if you haven't noticed. The world isn't worse for it.

> >

> > > So no, I dont think they should regulate products in this manner. Now If the product contains lead or is radioactive, then sure.

> > Why? People should have enough self-control and awareness to check for things like that after all. If their get poisoned, it's their own fault. [/sarcasm]

> > (before you start shouting, notice that is exactly your own argument, just applied to the food instead of gambling).

> >

> >

>

> You need food to live, gambling is optional as are cigarettes and alcohol.

>

> It's like saying some people out there are addicted to alcohol therefore nobody should have it and we should shut it down. They shouldnt be allowed to advertise it because that's manipulative and because children exist, they might want it, so it's clearly predatory. Prohibition anyone?

 

Yes. I do believe that advertising any kind of addictive substance, including alcohol and nicotine, should be prohibited. You, as a "psychologist" should know the effects of advertisment. And no, it has nothing to do with self control (which yes, some people lack due to various reasons besides bad parenting, including myself due to a neurological disorder that affects my frontal lobe, the center of impulse control)