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

[GDRRiley]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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

here in the US most of them don't understand 10% of what they vote for. 

[handymanshandle]

I spent maybe $30 opening cases for TF2, I knew there was a good chance I wasn't going to get anything good. And sometimes you get something good.

So in a way it's sort of gambling but it's kinda hard to really turn it to anything really of value.

 

But for 16-20 year olds who work, and know what they're spending their money on, I don't see why crates like that should be banned.

 

But then again I think 17 year olds at least should be able to buy lottery with their own money obviously. 

 

Another issue I have is 21? What the fuck? I know some states make gambling legal at 21, but at least Minnesota isn't one of them that makes gambling legal at 21. You can get lottery and go to the Casino at 18. 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

here in the US most of them don't understand 10% of what they vote for. 

You reckon? or are they intentionally ignoring the facts and promoting the more superficial rhetoric.   Seriously, the biggest problem with voters/lobbyists is that they under estimate politicians,  politicians aren't stupid.  

 

What is more dangerous? a politician who knows he is voting for something based on lies or a politician that is voting on something he doesn't understand?  Let's not forget that we only know the surface stuff.  somewhere in  between all this is reality and that is what people need to understand before they can do anything about either of the above situations. 

[Ithanul]

On 12/21/2017 at 1:38 AM, LAwLz said:

I think the age restriction is too high. I was going to point out that you can buy alcohol earlier than you can buy lootbox but apparently the legal drinking age is 21 in all of those states, which I think is crazy. Are you seriously telling me that an 18 year old isn't allowed to drink in these states? 

 

I haven't read the bill, but judging by the title I really don't like it.

1) Age restriction is too high. The US seems to have this really weird view of legal limits where I think everything is too high, except a few things which are too low. No sex until you're 18? No drinking until you're 21? But you are allowed to drive cars at 16? Where is the logic in that?

 

2) This can do some serious damage to games which handle loot boxes well. Games such as Hearthstone where they are easy to earn in-game through regular gameplay. Games like Rainbow 6 Siege where it is only cosmetics (at least from what I know, correct me if I'm wrong).

 

3) Chances are this bill won't actually do anything.

 

4) If something happens, such as a 21 year old rating on games, then chances are it might scare parents off for the wrong reasons. A game like GTA where you do drugs, have sex and kill people? Let's give that a rating of 17. Hearthstone which is a cartoony card game very similar to the Pokemon card game nobody ever had any issues with? Let's slap a 21+ rating on that!

Yep, our drinking age is 21.  To smoke is still around 18, but there been talks to moving it up to 21.

 

On the driving at 16, that is a restricted license or learner's permit depending upon State.

This the list on how each State handles driving licenses.  Why does it vary?  Because the Federal gov leaves it up to the States to figure their own business out on that issue.  To make it even more wacky, driving laws can have slight variations by each State.

Also, have to consider the culture here in the States.  Driving is a big part of it because our mass transport systems are not very built up outside the big metro cities.  Along with the pricing be crap when wanting to take long distance travel by such systems (seriously, was cheaper for me to drive from North part of California to South part of that State then to use the Amtrak system).

Spoiler

State	Learner's Permit	Restricted License	Full License
Alabama	15	16	17
Alaska	14	16	16, 6 mos.
Arizona	15, 6 mos.	16	16, 6 mos.
Arkansas	14	16	16, 6 mos.
California	15, 6 mos.	16	17
Colorado	15	16	17
Connecticut	16	16, 4 mos.	18
Delaware	16	16, 6 mos.	17
District of Columbia	16	16, 6 mos.	18
Florida	15	16	18
Georgia	15	16	18
Hawaii	15, 6 mos.	16	17
Idaho	14, 6 mos.	15	16
Illinois	15	16	18
Indiana	15.	16, 6 mos.	18
Iowa	14	16	17
Kansas	14	16	16, 6 mos.
Kentucky	16	16, 6 mos.	17
Louisiana	15	16	17
Maine	15	16	16, 6 mos.
Maryland	15, 9 mos.	16, 6 mos.	18
Massachusetts	16	16, 6 mos.	18
Michigan	14, 9 mos.	16	17
Minnesota	15	16	16, 6 mos.
Mississippi	15	16	16, 6 mos.
Missouri	15	16	18
Montana	14, 6 mos.	15	16
Nebraska	15	16	17
Nevada	15, 6 mos.	16	18
New Hampshire	15, 6 mos.	16	17, 1 mo.
New Jersey	16	17	18
New Mexico	15	15, 6 mos.	16, 6 mos.
New York	16	16, 6 mos.	17 w/classes or 18
North Carolina	15	16	16, 6 mos.
North Dakota	14	15	16
Ohio	15, 6 mos.	16	18
Oklahoma	15, 6 mos.	16	16, 6 mos.
Oregon	15	16	17
Pennsylvania	16	16, 6 mos.	17 with classes or 18
Rhode Island	16	16, 6 mos.	17, 6 mos.
South Carolina	15	15, 6 mos.	16, 6 mos.
South Dakota	14	14, 6 mos.	16
Tennessee	15	16	17
Texas	15	16	18
Utah	15	16	17
Vermont	15	16	16, 6 mos.
Virginia	15, 6 mos.	16, 3 mos.	18
Washington	15	16	17
West Virginia	15	16	17
Wisconsin	15, 6 mos.	16	16, 9 mos.
Wyoming	15	16	16, 6 mos.

Have to consider each State's culture and viewpoint compare to other countries' cultures.  Heck, take someone from a Northern State, a Western State, a Eastern State, and a Southern State and stick them in a room.  You probably have an arguing fight on your hand, or someone wanting to punch someone because someone is stupid enough to start talking politics.

[dragoon20005]

4 hours ago, Jito463 said:

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

 

I been pretty careful of what i do to protect my account. The fact that it was the game servers that got hacked and the company not admitting to the incident and refusing refund made me angry. That was years of farming and hard earned cash washed down the drain because of the company mistake.

 

Imagine a bank gets robbed and money drain out of the bank. But refuse to refund the amount lost for the customers. Would you be angry as well?

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, dragoon20005 said:

I been pretty careful of what i do to protect my account. The fact that it was the game servers that got hacked and the company not admitting to the incident and refusing refund made me angry. That was years of farming and hard earned cash washed down the drain because of the company mistake.

 

Imagine a bank gets robbed and money drain out of the bank. But refuse to refund the amount lost for the customers. Would you be angry as well?

I know someone who lost out in eve the same way, they change one of the menu's which contained the command to jump.  He was attacked, couldn't find the jump command and lost years worth of game play.  Eve acknowledged it was not his fault and that they shouldn't have moved such integral controls,  but they refused to refund him his gear and ship.  He hasn't played since.

 

[Eduard the weeb]

me maxs out credit card on CS and OverWatch loot boxes immediately 

[Jito463]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

politicians aren't stupid

Hank Johnson would like to have a word with you (seriously, search Youtube for "Guam tipping over").

[ARikozuM]

33 minutes ago, dragoon20005 said:

I been pretty careful of what i do to protect my account. The fact that it was the game servers that got hacked and the company not admitting to the incident and refusing refund made me angry. That was years of farming and hard earned cash washed down the drain because of the company mistake.

 

Imagine a bank gets robbed and money drain out of the bank. But refuse to refund the amount lost for the customers. Would you be angry as well?

You should file a lawsuit or pursue action since those items do belong to you.

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Hank Johnson would like to have a word with you (seriously, search Youtube for "Guam tipping over").

So you think because one* says dumb things they all are dumb?     I really fear a country when it's citizenry can't discern between stupidity, ignorance and carefully chosen language.   It's like when everyone went nuts over the Math statement from Turnbull (Aussie PM).  So quick to assume he was ignorant that they missed the gravity of what he was saying.

 

 

*I am aware there might be more than one, but there are many hundreds of politicians.

 

 

[Jito463]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So you think because one* says dumb things they all are dumb?

No, the Hank Johnson comment was more because I like to make fun of his stupidity....repeatedly.

 

In any event, I was implying many politicians are ignorant, not dumb.  Ignorance =/= dumb.  We're all ignorant about something or another in our lives, fortunately it's correctable.  Unfortunately, too many don't care enough to correct their ignorance (and I'm not talking about just politicians).

[mr moose]

Just now, Jito463 said:

No, the Hank Johnson comment was more because I like to make fun of his stupidity....repeatedly.

 

In any event, I was implying many politicians are ignorant, not dumb.  Ignorance =/= dumb.  We're all ignorant about something or another in our lives, fortunately it's correctable.  Unfortunately, too many don't care enough to correct their ignorance (and I'm not talking about just politicians).

Again, you are assuming ignorance because they are saying something you don't like/agree with.  Most people have an agenda they have to work through.  If that means pushing policy/deals that are unpopular, then they are going to concentrate on the bits that support their agenda and be dismissive of the facts that don't.  There is no evidence of ignorance when people very carefully craft words that avoid highlighting the more inconvenient sides of their activities.    Remember these people would say different things if their only audience was tech enthusiasts or knitters.   Even Elon Musk, who's PR skills are above 9000 and could sell ice to the eskimo's has to make statements that don't include all the information and consequently lead the more technically minded to raise an eyebrow concerning his intelligence/integrity.  

[dragoon20005]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

I know someone who lost out in eve the same way, they change one of the menu's which contained the command to jump.  He was attacked, couldn't find the jump command and lost years worth of game play.  Eve acknowledged it was not his fault and that they shouldn't have moved such integral controls,  but they refused to refund him his gear and ship.  He hasn't played since.

 

 

11 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

You should file a lawsuit or pursue action since those items do belong to you.

It happened when i was a kid and i do not know anything about lawsuits at that time

 

And their form of compensation was just double exp and mesos which most of us who got hacked are maxed out level chars

 

initially they didn't want to do any compensations and wanted to push the blame to us gamer.

 

most my game time was at home with all the pc scanned and removed of any virus or key loggers. I never set foot to any cyber cafes or LAN shops as we called to play the game in fear of getting hacked by other players.

 

So to lose all my hard earn items in just one weekend made me blew my top

 

I stromed into their customer support office demanded my items to be restored but when they refused I just trashed their customer support PCs and damaged their sign boards before they called security on me and threw me out.

 

They could have called the police on me but prob didn't because i was a kid

 

[Jito463]

On 12/20/2017 at 11:44 PM, dragoon20005 said:

i can assure you those players who play loot boxes are above 21 years old

 

I admit i spent a few thousands of real money worth of loot boxes

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

I spent like 15,000 dollars on that game!

43 minutes ago, dragoon20005 said:

It happened when i was a kid and i do not know anything about lawsuits at that time

......

They could have called the police on me but prob didn't because i was a kid

That seems....contradictory.

[JoostinOnline]

"Minors under 21" is a really weird thing to say.  All minors are under 21.

[ravenshrike]

21 hours ago, wcreek said:

 

But for 16-20 year olds who work, and know what they're spending their money on, I don't see why crates like that should be banned.

Thus proving your knowledge of brain development is minimal. Primus, habits once formed, from addictive actions or not, are difficult to break. Secundus, the human brain doesn't finish developing, especially in regards to long term decision making until the early 20's, and doubly for males who tend to lag in that regard until 20 or so.

[handymanshandle]

1 hour ago, ravenshrike said:

Thus proving your knowledge of brain development is minimal. Primus, habits once formed, from addictive actions or not, are difficult to break. Secundus, the human brain doesn't finish developing, especially in regards to long term decision making until the early 20's, and doubly for males who tend to lag in that regard until 20 or so.

Look, if you're gonna get addicted to something or not, it isnt gonna matter if you 15 or if you 90. You're gonna get addicted if that's how your brain works.

 

A 16-20 year old oughta know what the hell they're spending their money on. Frankly though, I'm fine with the age of 18 for lottery and pretty much everything else. 

 

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

Thus proving your knowledge of brain development is minimal. Primus, habits once formed, from addictive actions or not, are difficult to break. Secundus, the human brain doesn't finish developing, especially in regards to long term decision making until the early 20's, and doubly for males who tend to lag in that regard until 20 or so.

Males tend not to finish developing their frontal cortex until 27 on average. 

3 hours ago, wcreek said:

Look, if you're gonna get addicted to something or not, it isnt gonna matter if you 15 or if you 90. You're gonna get addicted if that's how your brain works.

 

A 16-20 year old oughta know what the hell they're spending their money on. Frankly though, I'm fine with the age of 18 for lottery and pretty much everything else. 

 

Yes that's generally true, however everything that effects the reward system in the brain (dopamine) has a bigger and longer effect when that occurs during initial development (up until 27 on average for males). 

[dragoon20005]

On 12/24/2017 at 10:22 PM, Jito463 said:

That seems....contradictory.

you do know old habits never die

 

i playing most recently mostly mobile games and prob spent 5 grand on the game already

yes that incident happened when i was a kid

 

but now that i am close to my 30s

 

i still playing a ton of game which made me easily spend thousands of dollars

[Jito463]

7 minutes ago, dragoon20005 said:

yes that incident happened when i was a kid

 

but now that i am close to my 30s

You completely missed my point.  You made the absolute statement (without evidence, by the way) that all those buying lootboxes are over 21.  You then made the contradictory statement that you spent $15k on digital items when you were "a kid" (how you got ahold of $15k as a kid, is another question entirely).  Of course, you never clarified what age you meant, since "a kid" could mean virtually anything.

[dragoon20005]

9 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

You completely missed my point.  You made the absolute statement (without evidence, by the way) that all those buying lootboxes are over 21.  You then made the contradictory statement that you spent $15k on digital items when you were "a kid" (how you got ahold of $15k as a kid, is another question entirely).  Of course, you never clarified what age you meant, since "a kid" could mean virtually anything.

that amount was accumulated over the years saving up/skipping lunch and using the lunch money to buy pre-paid cards

 

i started playing since 2005 until 2009

 

and some of the items I got on my char has a net worth of a few hundreds of dollars to almost 1 grand if traded for real cash transaction.

 

 

 

 

yes it contradicts what i said

 

even after the Maple story saga,

 

The next game that i played up to this day

 

I still spend stupid amount of money

 

and with my steady income, I even spending more than what I used to

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, dragoon20005 said:

yes it contradicts what i said

Thank you for finally acknowledging it.

[asand1]

Just get rid of loot boxes altogether. Sell in game credits and straight up buy what you want. Its all B.S. gouging by the devs anyway.

[HalGameGuru]

On 12/23/2017 at 3:11 AM, mr moose said:

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

 

Regulation != Government. Regulation is perfectly fine. I don't care what vice it is you are harping on today. The state has no place to impose itself on the voluntary actions of peaceful individuals. all legitimate claims for damages and torts are handled directly and succinctly thru property rights and contract. Regulation for standards and disclosure are well and good, but not imposed at the point of a gun. 

 

I don't care about the SIZE. I care about its PREMISES and FOUNDATIONS. I have a very wide, yet precise, definition of regulation. I have a very narrow and specific definition of MORAL and VALID human action. which the state fails. I don't care if its the feds, your municipal government, or one lone mafiosi coercively meddling in your affairs, they are all immoral.

 

a Chief != government any more than a CEO, manager, or property owner equals a government. LEADERSHIP is not RULERSHIP. If it is coercive, presumptive, and monopolistic it is statist governance, I don't even require geographical boundaries to label it as such. VOLUNTARY governance can and has existed even inside statist systems, heck I mentioned one of them earlier. If there is a chief that holds you to task, presumes over your rights, and refuses you peaceably leaving or exercising your innate human rights they are just as evil as our federal republic or a despotic marxist regime.

 

How do you define successful? I personally consider the Brehons pretty successful, Harappa and other Indus civilization societies, Iceland, I cannot remember the name of the city in the middle east that was stateless for over a millenia but when I DO find it I will PM a link to you, there were many in Africa and Southeast Asia, I just haven't read up on as many of them as I have the Irish and Indus.

 

And you should really read thru the entirety of the articles if you are going to double down on misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the terms involved.

[mr moose]

41 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

Regulation != Government. Regulation is perfectly fine. I don't care what vice it is you are harping on today. The state has no place to impose itself on the voluntary actions of peaceful individuals. all legitimate claims for damages and torts are handled directly and succinctly thru property rights and contract. Regulation for standards and disclosure are well and good, but not imposed at the point of a gun. 

 

I don't care about the SIZE. I care about its PREMISES and FOUNDATIONS. I have a very wide, yet precise, definition of regulation. I have a very narrow and specific definition of MORAL and VALID human action. which the state fails. I don't care if its the feds, your municipal government, or one lone mafiosi coercively meddling in your affairs, they are all immoral.

 

a Chief != government any more than a CEO, manager, or property owner equals a government. LEADERSHIP is not RULERSHIP. If it is coercive, presumptive, and monopolistic it is statist governance, I don't even require geographical boundaries to label it as such. VOLUNTARY governance can and has existed even inside statist systems, heck I mentioned one of them earlier. If there is a chief that holds you to task, presumes over your rights, and refuses you peaceably leaving or exercising your innate human rights they are just as evil as our federal republic or a despotic marxist regime.

 

How do you define successful? I personally consider the Brehons pretty successful, Harappa and other Indus civilization societies, Iceland, I cannot remember the name of the city in the middle east that was stateless for over a millenia but when I DO find it I will PM a link to you, there were many in Africa and Southeast Asia, I just haven't read up on as many of them as I have the Irish and Indus.

 

And you should really read thru the entirety of the articles if you are going to double down on misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the terms involved.

Authority is authority and regulation of the community is regulation of the community.  Scale means virtually nothing.   The problem here is you are laboring under the preconception that government regulation is somehow different to tribal regulation. They are the same thing.