US lawmaker lays out plans for anti-loot box law

[Spenser1337]

21 hours ago, Frankenburger said:

The whole "vote with your wallet" argument is extremely flimsy and holds no water. If it did hold water, we wouldn't be here right now. The problem is the vast majority of people are OK with micro transactions. People like me and you who boycott egregious practices are in the minority.

Yeah the entire concept of a free market is flimsy because people buy things in a video game.

[Brooksie359]

On 12/7/2017 at 11:04 AM, MrTiC said:

Loot boxes are in any form (payed or free) gambling 

At that point you could say that random drop items in mmos are gambling as well. If you don't pay for it it's not gambling. I mean unless you want to count Diablo, borderlands, and any other game that has item drops that are randomized as gambling. 

[Brooksie359]

On 12/7/2017 at 5:21 PM, Frankenburger said:

I hope it's retroactive. Honestly, even if Overwatch was rated as AO, I don't see that cutting into Blizzard's bottom line by any significant degree at this point. But ultimately what I hope happens when it comes to Overwatch is Blizzard removes the loot crate system and makes cosmetics up front purchases. I enjoy the gameplay to Overwatch, but the reward system is so blatantly designed to encourage loot crate sales that it kills my enjoyment of the game. If I want that dope AF demoness Mercy skin, why can't I simply buy it?

Honestly I think hearthstone would be a bigger problem if they find that the card pack system is gambling because it definitely falls under a similarly category. 

[mr moose]

EA will simply make a sizable donation to some other senators/congressman and have the new laws quashed. 

[mr moose]

On 12/8/2017 at 10:58 AM, Windspeed36 said:

Given that data from one of Melbourne's largest hospitals showed that gambling played the primary cause in approximately 1 in 5 suicidal patients who were being admitted.

 

Australia pretty much has the biggest gambling addiction problem in the world and if banning loot crates stops the next wave of youth going down that same road, I'm okay with that.

 

I agree, not because I think loot boxes intrinsically lead to gambling, but because we all have to make compromises if we want the society we live in to work better.   If banning loot boxes reduces suicide rates then it also indirectly increases work participation rates which keeps the wheels ticking over. 

 

On a different note, I'd rather they banned in game purchases so the money spent in those things has a better chance of staying in the country.

[Frankenburger]

3 hours ago, Arokhantos said:

 

No there not.

The definition of gamble is to wager against the odds for a desired outcome.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gambling

 

By that definition, yes, loot boxes are gambling.

[Eaglerino]

On 12/7/2017 at 6:43 PM, Frankenburger said:

So you would rather things stay the way they are - in a downward spiral plummeting towards another gaming industry crash?

 

Cool

Actually yes, the consumer should be the one to decide with their wallets. Loot boxes are our own fault, we keep paying for them, we keep paying for microtrasnactions. The government doesn't need to get their grubby hands on even more regulations, especially something as dumb as a loot box. If the industry crashes over freaking loot boxes, then we did it to ourselves. It would recover, it has before.

 

The way I see it, if you can't trade what you get in the loot box for any real monetary value, then it's not gambling. You're 100% sure you're losing 100% of your money, with nothing in return. But if you can trade it for real value, then you should have to be 18 at least, not sure about 21

[ZimFreak]

On 12/7/2017 at 11:54 AM, The Benjamins said:

all loot boxes would need to be player earned not paid for

Which means the devs would just switch to charging for XP boosts and having laughably slow progression otherwise (see Star Wars Battlefront 2's progressions system)

 

EA isn't going to stop, nor will Activision or Ubisoft. AAA publishers are just going to find a new method to fuck over gamers and wring them dry of every last penny. AAA gaming is dead and buried. Long live the indie dev

[Frankenburger]

14 minutes ago, Eaglerino said:

Actually yes, the consumer should be the one to decide with their wallets. Loot boxes are our own fault, we keep paying for them, we keep paying for microtrasnactions. The government doesn't need to get their grubby hands on even more regulations, especially something as dumb as a loot box. If the industry crashes over freaking loot boxes, then we did it to ourselves. It would recover, it has before.

 

The way I see it, if you can't trade what you get in the loot box for any real monetary value, then it's not gambling. You're 100% sure you're losing 100% of your money, with nothing in return. But if you can trade it for real value, then you should have to be 18 at least, not sure about 21

Government intervention got us net neutrality, so it's not like government intervention is automatically a bad thing. If the government simply enforces AO ratings in games with lootboxes, then I don't see why you're up in arms about it. After all, per the ESRB criteria for AO, loot boxes should already be placed under an AO rating.

 

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.aspx

Quote

Real Gambling - Player can gamble, including betting or wagering real cash or currency

 

This government intervention merely forces the ESRB to uphold their guidelines for what should be AO. Just because you disagree with the literal definition of gambling doesn't mean loot boxes aren't gambling. You're still dropping money to wager against the odds for a desired outcome. That is the very definition of gambling, even if you believe it not to be.

 

Also, since you believe we should let ill-informed individuals to continue to make bad decisions that negatively affect the gaming industry, their mental health, and their financial well being, are you also against cigarette, alcohol, drug, and casino regulations?

[Frankenburger]

38 minutes ago, Eaglerino said:

Actually yes, the consumer should be the one to decide with their wallets. Loot boxes are our own fault, we keep paying for them, we keep paying for microtrasnactions. The government doesn't need to get their grubby hands on even more regulations, especially something as dumb as a loot box. If the industry crashes over freaking loot boxes, then we did it to ourselves. It would recover, it has before.

 

The way I see it, if you can't trade what you get in the loot box for any real monetary value, then it's not gambling. You're 100% sure you're losing 100% of your money, with nothing in return. But if you can trade it for real value, then you should have to be 18 at least, not sure about 21

Also, saying we should LET the gaming industry crash is extremely irresponsible and short sighted. The gaming industry is a huge source of income that adds economic value and offers many jobs to the people. It also helps drive sales and increases demand for increasingly better home theater technologies, computer technologies, and is beginning to blur the lines between games and movies.

 

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/tools/upcoming-animated-series-zafari-rendered-completely-unreal-game-engine-153123.html

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/tech/unreal-encourages-filmmakers-to-use-its-game-engine-111708.html

 

Having the game industry crash would negatively affect ALL of that, and will cause many people to lose their jobs. And all for what? Because you don't want the government to enforce AO ratings in games with loot boxes?

[ravenshrike]

4 hours ago, ZimFreak said:

Which means the devs would just switch to charging for XP boosts and having laughably slow progression otherwise (see Star Wars Battlefront 2's progressions system)

Which doesn't work nearly as well as the gambling impulse, and will be much more likely to negatively affect sales.

4 hours ago, Frankenburger said:

Also, saying we should LET the gaming industry crash is extremely irresponsible and short sighted.

The idea that there would be another industry crash like that of the 80's is absurd. The industry is too large to total itself like that. Now, EA and the Activision part of Activision Blizzard might in a worst case scenario manage to off themselves, but that would just see Blizzard spun off and the rest of the IPs snatched up by others.

[Frankenburger]

3 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

The idea that there would be another industry crash like that of the 80's is absurd. The industry is too large to total itself like that. Now, EA and the Activision part of Activision Blizzard might in a worst case scenario manage to off themselves, but that would just see Blizzard spun off and the rest of the IPs snatched up by others.

Even if it can't crash as hard as it did in the 80s, that dosent mean it won't crash it all. The last crash happened because the industry grew too large, had too little quality, and had no consumer trust. That sounds extremely reminiscent to what's happening now. Companies are spending waaaaay too much money to make these games, many of them are implementing tired micro transactions, loot crates are becoming more and more stigmatized, and there are way too many low effort and trash indies. If the proposal for games with loot crates to be rated AO fails, then I can guarantee you things will get worse before it gets better. I mean, we're already seeing it happen. EA removed loot crate exclusive progression from Battlefront 2, but it still exists in NFS and UFC. Then there's the fact that companies like Activision are patenting disgusting micro transaction practices that I can guarantee you they want to use, let alone are glorifying loot crates wit Cod WW2 by letting people spectate others opening loot crates.

 

Ultimately, things don't look good, and I dread where we're heading if we don't get this shit under control.