US Senate Against Lootboxes and Pay2Win Micro-Transactions

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

We are asking you to take personal responsibility for your purchases

No, you are not. You are demanding that I, and people like me, bear the burden of those that do not take personal responsibility for themselves.

 

Because, yet again, YOU ARE ONLY AFFECTED IF YOU CHOOSE TO BE AFFECTED.

 

I'm not holding a gun to your head, demanding you buy the next CoD and then blow your savings on its lootboxes. If you do so, that is YOUR decision, YOUR right as a consumer, YOUR responsibility.

3 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

refuse to see how that influences the market.

A few dozen games, out of THOUSANDS, having an option that I, and people like me, like having available is not impeding your ability to play games without that option.

 

And even if it did, you have no right to make it so I can not partake of that option or that companies be stripped of the ability to provide an option that many want.

[Trik'Stari]

9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, you are not. You are demanding that I, and people like me, bear the burden of those that do not take personal responsibility for themselves.

 

Because, yet again, YOU ARE ONLY AFFECTED IF YOU CHOOSE TO BE AFFECTED.

 

I'm not holding a gun to your head, demanding you buy the next CoD and then blow your savings on its lootboxes. If you do so, that is YOUR decision, YOUR right as a consumer, YOUR responsibility.

A few dozen games, out of THOUSANDS, having an option that I, and people like me, like having available is not impeding your ability to play games without that option.

 

And even if it did, you have no right to make it so I can not partake of that option or that companies be stripped of the ability to provide an option that many want.

..........

 

You seem to be completely missing the point.

 

I want the majority of the industry to make a certain type of game. They don't make that game, because people like yourself by the other type of game that makes them ridiculously undeserved amounts of money. So they stop making the type of game that I want to play.

 

Meaning I am left with nothing but what the indy community makes. You seem to fail to understand that it's not about me having to play the type of game you play, it's that they have almost completely stopped making the type of game I WANT TO PLAY. Meaning my options have become either buy the shit games, or just.... don't have any games at all.

 

You, and people like you, have soured the part of the market that puts the most money into games, meaning all the big budget games with the best graphics and most popular IP, end up being shit games with microtransactions (shit because they are rushed out and have microtransactions), when the rest of us would prefer to have those same games without microtransactions.

 

I'm not sure how this can be made more abundantly clear. It's getting to the point that I am going to assume you just can't tolerate having your own choices questioned by others, and cannot stand the thought that perhaps you were somehow wrong in your purchases.

 

I largely do not purchase these games, and do not play them. But still my choices have become more and more limited. I love first person shooters, but the quality of them has been degraded severely and the focus these days is ENTIRELY on multiplayer instead of a good story.

 

Look at Battlefield's 1 and 5 for a clearcut example of this.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

It's getting to the point that I am going to assume you just can't tolerate having your own choices questioned by others, and cannot stand the thought that perhaps you were somehow wrong in your purchases.

The same can be said about you, except you're advocating the removal of choice.

 

Your argument is a nothing burger. The types of games you want to play are still being made. Just not in as large a number as they were, because there are other parts of the market that would go unserved otherwise.

 

And you have no right to demand that they make what you want, either at all or exclusively.

[Delicieuxz]

Remember this article?

 

Eagle-eyed YouTuber discovers ongoing EA online-matchmaking shenanigans

 

People in the US should email it to their representative's office as clear systematic predatory intentions behind loot boxes and the like.

[Trik'Stari]

18 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The same can be said about you, except you're advocating the removal of choice.

 

Your argument is a nothing burger. The types of games you want to play are still being made. Just not in as large a number as they were, because there are other parts of the market that would go unserved otherwise.

 

And you have no right to demand that they make what you want, either at all or exclusively.

I have every right to demand this of them, if they want my money. That's how goods and services work. I/We have every right to demand this regulation from government. Whether or not it passes should, ideally, depend upon public opinion. We still have the right to demand it, that's how democracy is supposed to work.

 

You keep using words like "rights" and "responsibility" but I don't think you really understand what they mean or entail.

 

And enough of us have complained, that the government very well might take action. And they very well should.

 

Loot Boxes are gambling. The only defense I've ever seen is that "it's not worth real money" which came directly from EA, and is about as piss poor an argument as they could possibly make, because they're flat out admitting that their product isn't worth anything and that no one should ever buy it.

 

Sooner or later you will wake up, and realize you've been taken for a ride by an industry that does not care about you at all. They don't care about your experience or if you enjoyed the product. They only care whether or not they can use marketing to trick you into buying their garbage and giving away your (I assume) hard earned cash.

 

These arguments and discussions have been made by those more well learned than me, and they came to the same conclusion.

 

The course the Triple A games industry on is unsustainable, and eventually will burn itself out. It can't do anything else. Because a game that makes millions in profits is not considered "successful" because it didn't beat what the company promised the shareholders, whose only desire is "more money than actually exists".

 

You are legitimately the only person I have ever seen argue in favor of microtransactions or loot boxes, that, I assume, isn't being paid by a gaming company.

 

I am done here, and on the verge of considering you to either be under the full sway of cognitive dissonance, or a paid astroturfer being paid by a gaming company somewhere. Or perhaps you intend on releasing your own microtransaction laden shitfest of a game, and don't want to see those profits stripped away before you get the chance.

[Nowak]

Remember that Grand Theft Auto V is the single most profitable entertainment product of all time, and not even that is enough for Take Two or its shareholders. There's no righting this ship anymore. Something needs to be done, even if it means the AAA games industry collapsing.

[mr moose]

@Trik'Stari @Drak3  You both have the right to fight for what you want from the government and from companies.  

 

The Issue is remembering that sometimes we are not going to be on the winning side and that society as a whole is either broken or our personal views are just not shared by the majority.

 

There is much to be said for a free market, one that permits a company to run their business their way,  but at the same time if we pretend certain activities are without a larger cultural consequence then we run the risk of blindly supporting one right to the exclusion of many other less observable rights. 

[Feranoks]

@Drak3 

 

You do realise the job of a government is foremost to protect it's people. So if "harm" (being physical or psychological) falls on a member of that government, it has to exact an appropriate punishment. That's what laws are for. If a child gets molested or abused by a third party, it's not the parents that exact that punishment or are responsible for the crime itself (generally speaking oc since neglect is a thing -> in which case the parents get punished).

 

Now at which point something is considered "harm" is decided by the leader(s) of that country. And in a democratic country by voting. The fact is that in most countries gambling is ALREADY considered illegal for children. A game that has gambling practices should thus abide by the same rules as gambling. So the only question that needs answering is if Lootboxes are gambling.

 

Your argument for parent responsiblity is you saying that there should be no law that makes gambling illegal for children. And if parents don't want their kids to gamble to should not let them into casino's. That's fair, if that is your opinion but as said before, gambling laws are already in place. You're protesting the wrong thing...

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, Feranoks said:

You do realise the job of a government is foremost to protect it's people.

Not from themselves.

[yian88]

BURN THEM ALL !!! .... ehm i mean BAN THEM ALL !!! (microtransactions)

[Mindersteve]

On 5/8/2019 at 3:51 PM, Drak3 said:

Still don't see why we should suffer because a few people can't control themselves and some parents can't do their job.

I mean this crap is addicting, some people are genetically predisposed to this shit man. I challenge you to go take some meth and have the "will power" to not try it again.

[thorhammerz]

On 5/13/2019 at 5:56 AM, Feranoks said:

You do realise the job of a government is foremost to protect it's people.

Protecting and promoting the interests of the people on whom the government depends on for power (and/or personal gain). 

 

In short, the people with the money and/or guns.

 

Proclaiming a government is "by the people and for the people" is great for fluff and propaganda, but you're generally not going to see that in practice. 

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, Mindersteve said:

I mean this crap is addicting, some people are genetically predisposed to this shit man. I challenge you to go take some meth and have the "will power" to not try it again.

It's not a chemically induced addiction, nor is it on the same playingfield as meth.

 

BTW, meth isn't illegal because it's addicting, it's illegal because it has a hogh rate of making users violent.

[Mindersteve]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It's not a chemically induced addiction, nor is it on the same playingfield as meth.

 

BTW, meth isn't illegal because it's addicting, it's illegal because it has a hogh rate of making users violent.

Well yeah it is a chemically induced addiction, as all addictions are chemically induced. When a person opens a lootbox dopamine is released into the brain, as this is repeated you need more dopamine to sustain the same feeling. This can lead to severe financial debt and may lead to more addictions.

[Drak3]

11 minutes ago, Mindersteve said:

Well yeah it is a chemically induced addiction, as all addictions are chemically induced.

Chemically induced addiction is an addiction stemming from foreign chemicals, like methamphedemine.

 

12 minutes ago, Mindersteve said:

This can lead to severe financial debt and may lead to more addictions.

Very few people will get this far on loot boxes. The vast majority of us have enough self control and personal responsibility to stop ourselves well before that.

[Mindersteve]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Chemically induced addiction is an addiction stemming from foreign chemicals, like methamphedemine.

OK I see.

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Very few people will get this far on loot boxes. The vast majority of us have enough self control and personal responsibility to stop ourselves well before that.

True, but the point of this is to prevent children from getting addicted to this sort of thing. I'm no psychiatrist, but to me it seems like this would lead to things like gambling later in life

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Mindersteve said:

True, but the point of this is to prevent children from getting addicted to this sort of thing. 

That's the parent's job, not the government's.

[Mindersteve]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

That's the parent's job, not the government's.

Well parents kinda suck, but I agree to disagree.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Mr. horse said:

Very true, but most parents should not even have kids in the first place. So we need the government to step in for all the dead beat parents that should have never had kids in the first place.

Again, not goverment's job to dictate the private affairs of citizens. Otherwise, we're erecting fascism.

[Drak3]

Just now, Mr. horse said:

You say that like its a bad thing. 

 

Because Fascism has been repeatedly demonstrated to be bad.

[Theminecraftaddict555]

On 5/9/2019 at 1:02 PM, Drak3 said:

No, still not the job of the government to deny the economic sovernty of citizens.

 

It is a failing of parents, and individuals, that they allow this to happen. Failings that do not affect the rest of us.

Somewhat OT, but I feel like this seems to go back to the "violent-video game controversy" eras where a-lot of good-minded people agreed that majority of gamers shouldn't suffer just because a few went PSYCHO after playing violent video games. They came to the conclusion similar to yours, that we should stop blaming the games for the problems and place it on the individuals. 

[Feranoks]

15 hours ago, thorhammerz said:

Protecting and promoting the interests of the people on whom the government depends on for power (and/or personal gain). 

 

In short, the people with the money and/or guns.

 

Proclaiming a government is "by the people and for the people" is great for fluff and propaganda, but you're generally not going to see that in practice. 

No you are talking about types of government. A government at it's core is the need for people to group together for protection. Going as far back as tribes. Laws and regulations are mad to protect the group from its own people.

[Feranoks]

9 hours ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

Somewhat OT, but I feel like this seems to go back to the "violent-video game controversy" eras where a-lot of good-minded people agreed that majority of gamers shouldn't suffer just because a few went PSYCHO after playing violent video games. They came to the conclusion similar to yours, that we should stop blaming the games for the problems and place it on the individuals. 

Well it's not really the same since there is proven to be no connection between violent video games and violence. So there is no real reason to blame video games for that violence. Instead the individual is blamed for the act of violence itself. Now with gambling you are commiting the act of gambling, facilitated by the game. So you can blame the game. Same way you can blame a casino for allowing a minor to gamble.

[Dieterrr]

Correct me if i'm wrong or if someone else already stated this.
Isn't the bill from what the quotes in the initial starting post said not only against loot boxes and p2w micro transactions but also against every other kind of monetary additions in games like for example Fortnite ?
As the quotes don't say that loot boxes and p2w micro transactions should be banned but rather that "micro transactions" which  are in "games played by minors”.

Just looking for clarification

[thorhammerz]

7 hours ago, Feranoks said:

No you are talking about types of government. A government at it's core is the need for people to group together for protection.

Nope; I am talking about the purpose of the government itself. A "government" is merely the means to an end - to structure and control its population such that the interests of the ones at the top are served and preserved. All the type of government changes is merely the proportion, makeup, membership-qualification of the ruling cadre.

 

It doesn't matter if it's a "democracy", a "monarchy", communist-one-party-state, or a dictatorship - lipstick on a pig does not change the fact that it's still a pig.