New Bill aims to ban Loot Boxes in Games for Minors under 21

[SlipperyPete]

36 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

we have so much stuff screwed up, nothing but starting almost form the start will fix it. 

is this a revolution im hearing

[Kobathor]

12 hours ago, r3loAded said:

It's beyond my understanding how a 14 or 15 or any age under 18 is allowed to have access to money.

Might be different in the UK, but in the US it's not crazy for kids to do certain labor to earn a bit of change. I've been mowing lawns since I was twelve, and with that money, I've bought most of my own possessions. My PC, all of the peripherals, my own phone, a laptop, clothes, food, etc.

 

I think that it's good to teach kids financial responsibility and frugality so that they can manage money when they get wage jobs and so that they can really know what it means to purchase and own things. 

 

I guess this does pertain to loot boxes a bit. If a kid knows how to manage money, they might not be as quick to spend $2.50 on a CS:GO case key.

 

EDIT - this does not mean you give your kid a credit account and let them max it out.

[NumLock21]

The reason why the government wants to ban lootboxes for those under 21 is all thanks to EA. If EA name their lootbox to something else say EA's Treasure Chest, then the government will go after that instead of LootBoxes. Also if EA made lootboxes like everyone else where it does not affect game play, I'm pretty sure there won't be any complaints about it. Because they're cunts and some idiots with more money than sense like to support these cunts by wasting money on them, it creates a unfair playing field, for those that don't have $1,000 dollars in pocket change, just on lootboxes. It's sad the government has to step in, but there is no other choice when a large company with tons of money isn't going to give a rats ass about your peasant complaints.

[HalGameGuru]

Even if its a pay to win mechanic that only makes them dicks, it shouldn't be illegal. Getting the government in on this is some of the worst group think that can occur. A loot box is no different than a pack of baseball cards, an MTG/PCG booster, a popcap toy dispenser, or a raffle. Are all churches going to be shuttered for being gambling dens for having raffles? People need to take some personal responsibility and stop trying to get the government to usurp our self-ownership

[Shreyas1]

So... RIP most mobile games?

[mr moose]

25 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

Even if its a pay to win mechanic that only makes them dicks, it shouldn't be illegal. Getting the government in on this is some of the worst group think that can occur. A loot box is no different than a pack of baseball cards, an MTG/PCG booster, a popcap toy dispenser, or a raffle. Are all churches going to be shuttered for being gambling dens for having raffles? People need to take some personal responsibility and stop trying to get the government to usurp our self-ownership

 

That all hangs on the concept that society can correct and survive members who cannot self control. All successful communities look after their weakest, this is in the form of protecting them from external forces that they cannot handle by themselves.  In modern terms this is better known as government regulation.  There is nothing inherently wrong with regulation that protects the weak, this keeps them safe until natural development and community can shape them to be contributing members.  

 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

This is political busybodying at its worst. This is not the government's place. This is for individuals and parents to decide.

I wouldn’t say so at all; as I raised in another thread with @mr moose, Australia has the biggest problem gambling issue in the world. Approximately 70% of the population gambles and negative gambling impacts approximately 23% of the population. 

 

This isn’t just financial issues; domestic violence, workplace attendance/performance and overall mental health is drastically affected. Something like 1 in 5 admissions to hospital for attempted suicide were related to problem gambling. 

 

As I said previously, if banning these digital gambling systems in games that are played (not necessarily marketed but played) by teenagers and children helps to stop them following in others footsteps then so be it. 

 

 

[suicidalfranco]

54 minutes ago, Shreyas1 said:

So... RIP most mobile games?

Good ridance 

[ARikozuM]

For those saying major retailers won't stock AO-rated games: do you really think [RETAILER] won't stock GTA6? Or Call of Duty 10/Battlefield 1775?

Those games make them so much money that the "AO" banner will be burned the moment EA/Activision receive those ratings. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Windspeed36 said:

I wouldn’t say so at all; as I raised in another thread with @mr moose, Australia has the biggest problem gambling issue in the world. Approximately 70% of the population gambles and negative gambling impacts approximately 23% of the population. 

 

This isn’t just financial issues; domestic violence, workplace attendance/performance and overall mental health is drastically affected. Something like 1 in 5 admissions to hospital for attempted suicide were related to problem gambling. 

 

As I said previously, if banning these digital gambling systems in games that are played (not necessarily marketed but played) by teenagers and children helps to stop them following in others footsteps then so be it. 

 

 

 

Absolutely, and this can be drilled down to one of two outcomes for Australians, 1. it actually reduces problem gambling and the whole country benefits, 2 it does nothing for problem gambling but kids enjoy games without feeling like they have to buy every victory or skin to keep up with the other kids. EDIT: in my book that's win win, nobody loses.

 

As someone who has worked in education, I have seen a real world negative effect on kids who can't afford game skins or to watch a particular cable tv show.  Peer pressure is monstrous at the ages we are talking about here.    And it's got nothing to do with parents or economic standing, these issues are purely communal. The problem is an outside influence (in this case in game loot boxes) and the cause is lack of communal regulation.  These issues scale to the financial status of the peer group (meaning it isn't just the poor who are victim to it).   There is no magic piece of information you can give parents, kids or anyone that will change these things, they were there 20 years ago,  30 years ago 70 years ago even back in the early Greek and roman cultures these issue occurred.  That is why the government regulation came to be a thing, Government regulation has evolved from a communal demand for an authority to control what it intrinsically can't.

[ravenshrike]

7 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

For those saying major retailers won't stock AO-rated games: do you really think [RETAILER] won't stock GTA6? Or Call of Duty 10/Battlefield 1775?

Those games make them so much money that the "AO" banner will be burned the moment EA/Activision receive those ratings. 

How cute, you think that the publishers will take that chance and not shitcan any lootbox mechanics instead. In reality, those games will never reach the ESRB with lootbox mechanics inside them.

[HalGameGuru]

9 hours ago, Windspeed36 said:

-snip-

That's a call for personal responsibility and counseling not getting the government involved in policing personal choices.

[HalGameGuru]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

That all hangs on the concept that society can correct and survive members who cannot self control. All successful communities look after their weakest, this is in the form of protecting them from external forces that they cannot handle by themselves.  In modern terms this is better known as government regulation.  There is nothing inherently wrong with regulation that protects the weak, this keeps them safe until natural development and community can shape them to be contributing members.  

 

Yes it is GREAT to look after those who need looking after. Voluntarily, personally, not via coercion and state fiat. People can become alcoholics or get hooked on tobacco the solution isn't prohibition nor prison.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

Yes it is GREAT to look after those who need looking after. Voluntarily, personally, not via coercion and state fiat. People can become alcoholics or get hooked on tobacco the solution isn't prohibition nor prison.

Except it is not a problem that can be solved with individual altruism,  it is a communal problem and requires a communal solution. Like it or not when a community is faced with an external threat it must act to protect itself and this can only happen when the community as a whole organises interventions.  This is more commonly known as government regulation,  regulation to ensure the protection of the weak for the benefit of the whole.   It is an integral part of all communal survival since man came out of the cave.  

 

 

[Eaglerino]

Great, more regulations in gaming... This is our own fault, if we'd stop freaking paying for loot boxes they'd stop adding them

[HalGameGuru]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Except it is not a problem that can be solved with individual altruism,  it is a communal problem and requires a communal solution. Like it or not when a community is faced with an external threat it must act to protect itself and this can only happen when the community as a whole organises interventions.  This is more commonly known as government regulation,  regulation to ensure the protection of the weak for the benefit of the whole.   It is an integral part of all communal survival since man came out of the cave.  

 

 

Who says you can't get groups involved? Communities can come together voluntarily. Voluntary is superior, coercive is inferior, no matter whether you call it government or not. People need to be responsible. People who are in need of help, should be helped. There is great worth and accomplishment in providing such help. There is no worth, no accomplishment, and no moral achievement in using the state to meet such a need.

 

The belief that government is necessary is the greatest lie ever indoctrinated into youth via the state's own school systems.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

Who says you can't get groups involved? Communities can come together voluntarily. Voluntary is superior, coercive is inferior, no matter whether you call it government or not. People need to be responsible. People who are in need of help, should be helped. There is great worth and accomplishment in providing such help. There is no worth, no accomplishment, and no moral achievement in using the state to meet such a need.

 

The belief that government is necessary is the greatest lie ever indoctrinated into youth via the state's own school systems.

You missed the point,  you are still thinking in terms of the individual and on the premise that if an individual fails it does not effect the community.  This is a communal issue, the failure of any individual effects the whole community. Unless you can show me a society anywhere in the world that has survived whilst implementing a voluntary regulation, then there concept that government is not necessary is not born out of any evidence.   Even isolated tribes in the Amazon and Africa have chiefs and in some cases councils that regulate the community.   

[ARikozuM]

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

Who says you can't get groups involved? Communities can come together voluntarily. Voluntary is superior, coercive is inferior, no matter whether you call it government or not. People need to be responsible. People who are in need of help, should be helped. There is great worth and accomplishment in providing such help. There is no worth, no accomplishment, and no moral achievement in using the state to meet such a need.

Gambling addiction can be economically devastating and fixing it requires counseling which costs money and time making gambling addiction a win for casinos and psychologists or psychiatrists (depending on which is chosen). The addict gains nothing from gambling addiction or counseling as the money to do either dwindles. 

[mr moose]

23 minutes ago, anthonyjc2010 said:

 My only worry is that since U.S. representatives - my representatives - are older - or just uninformed - people who are both unfamiliar with this industry and love to jump on the "games make people violent" bandwagon I fear that this could give legislators the confidence to bring more regulations to games that cover actual content, not mechanics.

 

If it helps, your concerns are not new and you can be rest assured age has nothing to do with understanding and politicians are well informed. People don't generally care about "violent games causing violence" unless it bolsters their agenda, and for people/politicians like that, well they don't care about reality so they will use it whether it is true or not.    

 

This is a general problem with humanity and has been ever since we left the caves and worked out how to build a house from tree guts. 

 

 

[Mooshi]

Alternative title: Parents baww because they suck at parenting and need government hand holding.

 

Other alternative title: Gaming companies ruined Christmas for everyone.

 

Another alt: Maybe gaming will have all content like the 90's

 

On a serious note, the US gov is so mindlessly incompetent currently that I see no good coming from this.

[HalGameGuru]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

You missed the point,  you are still thinking in terms of the individual and on the premise that if an individual fails it does not effect the community.  This is a communal issue, the failure of any individual effects the whole community. Unless you can show me a society anywhere in the world that has survived whilst implementing a voluntary regulation, then there concept that government is not necessary is not born out of any evidence.   Even isolated tribes in the Amazon and Africa have chiefs and in some cases councils that regulate the community.   

No I'm not, and who says you can't have leaders and rules? People can and will have societies, cultures, associations, organizations, and leadership without the presumption of violence and monopolism. Heck even voluntary governance can exist. Every individual effects the community in everything they do, from being productive, acting on the market, refusing to act on the market, respecting or infringing other's property rights, etc. You do not get a net benefit by aggressing against one man's property rights to support or effect change where no crime has occurred.

 

If you want historical examples of stateless societies I can dig them up. From the handful of middle and near eastern stateless societies, the Brehon Irish, there were a few in SE Asia, etc. Whether your criteria is polycentric law, voluntary association, respect for natural law, or simply a lack of presumption over person or geography there have been plenty of successful and long lived societies without coercive governance.

 

We have voluntary association and regulation even NOW in a statist system. You think they wouldn't or couldn't exist without a presumptive statist system? There's a lot of literature on the subject. BitNATION is an interesting take on making a decentralized non-statist government apparatus, A Spontaneous Order, the Mises University has lots of good freely available literature and videos.

 

https://mises.org/library/private-law-emerald-isle

https://mises.org/library/lets-abolish-government

https://mises.org/library/law-without-state

https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-government

[HalGameGuru]

8 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Gambling addiction can be economically devastating and fixing it requires counseling which costs money and time making gambling addiction a win for casinos and psychologists or psychiatrists (depending on which is chosen). The addict gains nothing from gambling addiction or counseling as the money to do either dwindles. 

Counseling, rehab, and therapy can and do exist without the government. Before the government decided to hobble our medical industry and put fraternal organizations on their heels people had access to all that kind of support without NEED of state assistance, and charity/religious/philanthropic organizations were available to those who needed it.

 

https://tomwoods.com/ep-53-before-the-welfare-state/

https://mises.org/library/welfare-welfare-state

 

I'm not saying people who need help shouldn't get it. I am saying the state is an immoral and ineffectual vector for providing such assistance. You want examples of the state failing gloriously? War on drugs, war on poverty, military-industrial complex, our healthcare costs, the rapid decline of healthcare providers (these last two get covered well in the above media links), every idiotic military campaign of the last century, our education system, Housing bubble, banking collapse, the great depression, dot com bubble, the postal service, state imposed or supported monopoly or industry cronyism a la the railroads or ferries, eugenics programs, etc. etc.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

No I'm not, and who says you can't have leaders and rules? People can and will have societies, cultures, associations, organizations, and leadership without the presumption of violence and monopolism. Heck even voluntary governance can exist. Every individual effects the community in everything they do, from being productive, acting on the market, refusing to act on the market, respecting or infringing other's property rights, etc. You do not get a net benefit by aggressing against one man's property rights to support or effect change where no crime has occurred.

 

If you want historical examples of stateless societies I can dig them up. From the handful of middle and near eastern stateless societies, the Brehon Irish, there were a few in SE Asia, etc. Whether your criteria is polycentric law, voluntary association, respect for natural law, or simply a lack of presumption over person or geography there have been plenty of successful and long lived societies without coercive governance.

 

We have voluntary association and regulation even NOW in a statist system. You think they wouldn't or couldn't exist without a presumptive statist system? There's a lot of literature on the subject. BitNATION is an interesting take on making a decentralized non-statist government apparatus, A Spontaneous Order, the Mises University has lots of good freely available literature and videos.

 

https://mises.org/library/private-law-emerald-isle

https://mises.org/library/lets-abolish-government

https://mises.org/library/law-without-state

https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-government

 

You think game developers are going to give up loot boxes voluntarily or that people who make money from cigarettes, alcohol and gambling are going to voluntarily begin to act in an altruistic and community serving way?    The funny part is you link to an article that gives examples of regulation while trying to argue that regulation is not the answer.  One of those articles even talks about society having a chieftain instead of a government.  Where did I here that before?

 

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

You missed the point,  you are still thinking in terms of the individual and on the premise that if an individual fails it does not effect the community.  This is a communal issue, the failure of any individual effects the whole community. Unless you can show me a society anywhere in the world that has survived whilst implementing a voluntary regulation, then there concept that government is not necessary is not born out of any evidence.   Even isolated tribes in the Amazon and Africa have chiefs and in some cases councils that regulate the community.   

Thank you for supplying evidence to back up what I said.

 

 

You seem to have a very narrow definition of regulation if you think it's only bad coming from anything larger than a tribe run authority.  Again Show me a society that does NOT have any form of governance or regulation?  And you may have an argument, however you haven;t shown me anywhere where a society has been successful without some form of regulation from authority.

 

 

[Jito463]

On 12/21/2017 at 4:06 AM, dragoon20005 said:

I spent like 15,000 dollars on that game!

 

But what made me drop that game was a major server hack which wiped all my belongings

 

I wrecked their office and was thrown out of the place

So, you lack self control and are prone to violent outbursts?

On 12/21/2017 at 11:43 PM, HalGameGuru said:

Are all churches going to be shuttered for being gambling dens for having raffles?

Actually, I believe exemptions are made for charitable causes, though I'm completely against the concept of "church raffles" to begin with.

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

politicians are well informed.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

So, you lack self control and are prone to violent outbursts?

Actually, I believe exemptions are made for charitable causes, though I'm completely against the concept of "church raffles" to begin with.

In general yes,  don't confuse them not doing what you want with not understanding it.