• The site has now migrated to Xenforo 2. If you see any issues with the forum operation, please post them in the feedback thread.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

Video Games General

Dormin said:
This loot box stuff is a bad idea. I'm still not sure why it requires regulation. Can't the kids parents just take their credit cards away?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's entirely a good idea.

The fact that parents can take their credit cards away for kids doesn't mean that loot boxes and the predatory micro transactions of games don't need regulations.

They do their damnest to hit the people who are the type of people who get gambling addiction hard. They even start early because there are minors that can earn their own money and spend thousands of dollars before they realize it on loot boxes trying to get the next super special awesome item in a campaign or whatever.

There's a whole lot of more shit too.
 
OverReactionGuy said:
It's entirely a good idea.

The fact that parents can take their credit cards away for kids doesn't mean that loot boxes and the predatory micro transactions of games don't need regulations.

They do their damnest to hit the people who are the type of people who get gambling addiction hard. They even start early because there are minors that can earn their own money and spend thousands of dollars before they realize it on loot boxes trying to get the next super special awesome item in a campaign or whatever.

There's a whole lot of more shit too.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ok so, to start with, I'm curious. If there are definite measures that can be taken by the children's legal guardians to solve the problem (rather simple measures I might add) then why exactly do loot boxes need to be regulated? You just said that the fact that my proposed solution is sensible doesn't mean that they don't need to be regulated. Well then I must ask you what is the affirmative case for their regulation? Sorry if I've missed something in your post but it doesn't seem like you've made that case (merely restated the prior case that I addressed).
 
Dormin said:
If there are definite measures that can be taken by the children's legal guardians to solve the problem (rather simple measures I might add) then why exactly do loot boxes need to be regulated?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

For one, it's unregulated gambling.

For two, just because the child's guardian has that option doesn't mean that they would exercise it.

For three, these loot boxes and micro transactions are what's causing game developers time after time to develop broken unfinished games because they know people would buy their micro transactions to fix the game. Or artificially increase the massive grind for things and hide a lot of shit behind paywall barriers. Take a look at starwars battlefront two and how that turned out.

By the way, there isn't just one affirmative case dictating that the game industry's loot boxes and micro transactions need regulation. There's entire years worth of shit after shit and people are getting tired of it.
 
OverReactionGuy said:
For one, it's unregulated gambling.

For two, just because the child's guardian has that option doesn't mean that they would exercise it.

For three, these loot boxes and micro transactions are what's causing game developers time after time to develop broken unfinished games because they know people would buy their micro transactions to fix the game. Or artificially increase the massive grind for things and hide a lot of shit behind paywall barriers. Take a look at starwars battlefront two and how that turned out.

By the way, there isn't just one affirmative case dictating that the game industry's loot boxes and micro transactions need regulation. There's entire years worth of shit after shit and people are getting tired of it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not so sure it is gambling. You're paying for a randomized piece of digital content that can't be sold back to the company if you don't like it. You are still getting a product regardless of whether or not it's the type of that product that you want. As others have noted, defining this system to be gambling would imply that lots of other completely legal products (ex. yugioh cards) would be gambling. Also, would this apply to DLC? What if I bought the oblivion horse armor and hated it?

Secondly, I'm not sure what your argument is here? That because there adults with poor parenting skills the government should step in and do their job for them? Again, I will note that it is not that difficult to remove a child's access to credit cards to prevent this problem.

For point number three, well, I'm not sure how you know this to be true. I recall playing a fair number of bad games as a child and that was back before lootboxes were a thing. So I don't know how exactly lootboxes are causing games to be released in an unfinished state in anything like an industry wide trend. Also, if people don't like the lootboxes, won't that hurt the companies sales? I mean, if the lootboxes are egregious enough to tick people off won't the companies be paying for it? Like what happened to EA after battlefront 2.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/eas-day-of-reckoning-is-here-after-star-wars-game-uproar.html
 
Dormin said:
Secondly, I'm not sure what your argument is here? That because there adults with poor parenting skills the government should step in and do their job for them? Again, I will note that it is not that difficult to remove a child's access to credit cards to prevent this problem.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That is not what I'm arguing.

I'm arguing the fact that loot boxes and microtransactions need regulations. I know I'm not the type of person who can put shit into words where it would make sense.

My entire stance is the above, they need regulations. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you're talking about the child thing? Well, there's known cases where children developed an addiction to microtransactions.

Here is one case covered.

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


To summarize the video so you don't need to watch it. 13 year old spent 13k on microtransactions until he got to the age 19.

This is because he started young at 13 years old and played a mobile game with a pay to win model. He was taught at a young age that the value one 100 dollars doesn't mean much. His self control was shot because as he grew older he spent like 90% of his paycheck on microtransations. Even if it was just cosmetic items if he saw a toon not him wearing it, he would buy said cosmetic item. He even went to therapy because of it and can no longer play games that have a strong microtransaction element.

He didn't blame the company though.

I am honestly not sure what your argument is either honestly. We're coming at this from two different perspectives.

Anyway I'll probably stop bothering you now. I really, really didn't want to get into this. All I wanted to do is be happy that the government is actually attempting to do something about this shitty practice in the game industry that is starting to rot it completely.
 
OverReactionGuy said:
That is not what I'm arguing.

I'm arguing the fact that loot boxes and microtransactions need regulations. I know I'm not the type of person who can put shit into words where it would make sense.

My entire stance is the above, they need regulations. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you're talking about the child thing? Well, there's known cases where children developed an addiction to microtransactions.

Here is one case covered.



To summarize the video so you don't need to watch it. 13 year old spent 13k on microtransactions until he got to the age 19.

This is because he started young at 13 years old and played a mobile game with a pay to win model. He was taught at a young age that the value one 100 dollars doesn't mean much. His self control was shot because as he grew older he spent like 90% of his paycheck on microtransations. Even if it was just cosmetic items if he saw a toon not him wearing it, he would buy said cosmetic item. He even went to therapy because of it and can no longer play games that have a strong microtransaction element.

He didn't blame the company though.

I am honestly not sure what your argument is either honestly. We're coming at this from two different perspectives.

Anyway I'll probably stop bothering you now. I really, really didn't want to get into this. All I wanted to do is be happy that the government is actually attempting to do something about this shitty practice in the game industry that is starting to rot it completely.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well I must confess that I still disagree, but you've indicated your desire to end this engagement so I'll respect your wishes and leave it at that.
 
Dormin said:
This loot box stuff is a bad idea. I'm still not sure why it requires regulation. Can't the kids parents just take their credit cards away?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
IMO, everything within a game should be attained using purely in-game resources. (Expansion packs and other such material don't count as "within" the game.)

Even if a game has a full-on gacha, that can be okay... provided it only uses an in-game resource that can be freely farmed in unlimited amounts. (See: the figurines in Zelda Minish Cap or SSBM's trophies.)
 
Deathwings said:
You pay money to get randomized goodies. I don't see how this could be anything BUT gambling.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well you're actually getting a digital product regardless of whether you get the exact product you want. And I don't think that the company assigns any official resale value to lootbox content. So I don't think it's gambling.

Edit: I'll note again that defining this to be gambling would seem to include a lot of other products as gambling as well. (See the yugioh cards example). Would you consider yugioh, Pokemon, or magic cards to be gambling?
 
SwiftRosenthal said:
IMO, everything within a game should be attained using purely in-game resources. (Expansion packs and other such material don't count as "within" the game.)

Even if a game has a full-on gacha, that can be okay... provided it only uses an in-game resource that can be freely farmed in unlimited amounts. (See: the figurines in Zelda Minish Cap or SSBM's trophies.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ok, that's your opinion. That's fine. Does that justify regulating the content allowed in video games to the extent proposed?
 
Dormin:
First, don't double post. Edit your previous post.

Second, the legal definition of gambling requires paying something for it. If you aren't shilling something to roll that roulette and getting a prize, it is not gambling, therefore, a game with full-on gatcha that's only paid with in-game farmable currency rather than cash? Not gambling. This is not an opinion, this is how the law works.
Farmable currency that can be purchased by cash? That's shakier ground.

Trading card games are gambling. They fully match the legal definition of it. Whether they match the legal definition of illegal gambling can vary between locations (and by the age of the participants as well), but to my knowledge nobody has brought up a case to court about it and won. This is largely due to nobody caring enough about the damage done to do something about it.
 
Last edited:
aabbcc said:
Dormin:
First, don't double post. Edit your previous post.

Second, the legal definition of gambling requires paying something for it. If you aren't shilling something to roll that roulette and getting a prize, it is not gambling, therefore, a game with full-on gatcha that's only paid with in-game farmable currency rather than cash? Not gambling. This is not an opinion, this is how the law works.
Farmable currency that can be purchased by cash? That's shakier ground.

Trading card games are gambling. They fully match the legal definition of it. Whether they match the legal definition of illegal gambling can vary between locations (and by the age of the participants as well), but to my knowledge nobody has brought up a case to court about it and won. This is largely due to nobody caring enough about the damage done to do something about it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well that's interesting. Could you provide the legal definition of gambling in the United States? I'm sorry but I don't see any sources or quotes in your post. Also, if no one has legally defined trading card games as gambling then I'm not sure how you can say that they are definitively classified as gambling.

Not sure why you think I double posted. I'm not seeing it on my screen.
Edit: If you're just going off your opinion then that's okay, but you really shouldn't state that as legal fact.
 
Maybe this? https://definitions.uslegal.com/g/gambling/

Dormin said:
Not sure why you think I double posted. I'm not seeing it on my screen.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
here
post: 2601182 and post: 2601189
Dormin said:
Well you're actually getting a digital product regardless of whether you get the exact product you want. And I don't think that the company assigns any official resale value to lootbox content. So I don't think it's gambling.

Edit: I'll note again that defining this to be gambling would seem to include a lot of other products as gambling as well. (See the yugioh cards example). Would you consider yugioh, Pokemon, or magic cards to be gambling?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Dormin said:
Ok, that's your opinion. That's fine. Does that justify regulating the content allowed in video games to the extent proposed?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Dormin said:
Well that's interesting. Could you provide the legal definition of gambling in the United States? I'm sorry but I don't see any sources or quotes in your post. Also, if no one has legally defined trading card games as gambling then I'm not sure how you can say that they are definitively classified as gambling.

Not sure why you think I double posted. I'm not seeing it on my screen.
Edit: If you're just going off your opinion then that's okay, but you really shouldn't state that as legal fact.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Apart from uslegal, you could also go with this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5362
LII -> U.S. Code -> Title 31. MONEY AND FINANCE -> Subtitle IV. MONEY -> Chapter 53. MONETARY TRANSACTIONS -> Subchapter IV. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING -> Section 5362. Definitions:
(1)Bet or wager.—The term "bet or wager"—
(A) means the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome;
(B) includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is predominantly subject to chance);
...
(E) does not include—
...
(viii) participation in any game or contest in which participants do not stake or risk anything of value other than—
(I) personal efforts of the participants in playing the game or contest or obtaining access to the Internet; or
(II) points or credits that the sponsor of the game or contest provides to participants free of charge and that can be used or redeemed only for participation in games or contests offered by the sponsor; or​
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Loot boxes bought with cash? You're risking something of worth (money) upon the outcome of a game of chance (the loot box) upon the agreement of receiving something of value in the event of a certain outcome. They count.
Stuff bought with In-game farmable currency (that can only be obtained that way or is given away for free)? Falls under E->(viii), you're not staking or risking anything of value other than personal efforts of the participant (farming currency).

There is a slight loophole in regards to illegal gambling done online where the server is located off the USA. But it's very slight, and it'd take very little to close it.
 
aabbcc said:
Apart from uslegal, you could also go with this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5362

Loot boxes bought with cash? You're risking something of worth (money) upon the outcome of a game of chance (the loot box) upon the agreement of receiving something of value in the event of a certain outcome. They count.
Stuff bought with In-game farmable currency (that can only be obtained that way or is given away for free)? Falls under E->(viii), you're not staking or risking anything of value other than personal efforts of the participant (farming currency).

There is a slight loophole in regards to illegal gambling done online where the server is located off the USA. But it's very slight, and it'd take very little to close it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, here's the thing. I don't think that the loot boxes here have any actual value. People might be willing to trade the goods they get for cash, but I don't think you can actually sell lootboxes themselves back to the business or to a bank for legal tender. Additionally I must point out that the people in this situation are in fact receiving goods for their money. The only element of chance here is in what kind of goods they receive, unless your talking about lootboxes that have a chance of being empty (I can see an argument for those being gambling.) Otherwise I don't see it. I still don't know of any legal precedent in the United States that classifies lootboxes as gambling l. That also seems to be the ESRB's current statement as well.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gamesindustry.biz/amp/2017-10-11-loot-boxes-arent-gambling-esrb
 
Dormin said:
*snip*
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This does not matter. You are clearly not reading the legal definition of gambling.

You pay money for the chance to gamble, this is enough to fulfill the first part of the definition. Whether you can sell loot boxes to the bank does not matter. It doesn't even matter how much you pay for it, even if it's one millionth of a penny.
The contents of the loot box are content to chance. This fulfills the second part of the definition. It does not matter if it always contains 'something'. There is absolutely nothing on the law that says you get to not call it gambling if you always offer pithy prizes.
You obtain something 'of value', it does not define 'of value' as something you can deposit in a bank. Given people are gambling money to obtain it, and people are reselling these things in pretty much every system with lootboxes or booster packs where reselling is even remotely possible, then it is clearly of value.

It. Is. Gambling.

Whether it is illegal gambling or not is trickier to define because it depends on state legislation. Yes, the federal definition of illegal gambling is "it violates the state's specific legislation, it has more than 5 people involved, and it's been running for more than x time with more than 2000$ of money involved", since just about every game easily fulfills the later two conditions, it's up to each state if it's illegal there or not.
For some, any gambling done by minors is illegal, and much like buying alcohol or smokes, "it's the parent's responsibility to restrict the kid's access to money and watch what they buy" absolutely does not fly.

The ESRB is not empowered to decide whether something is gambling, and if you hunt down Vance's more complete quotes to Kotaku? Everything that flows out of her mouth is such sheer corporate shilling that even EA would think twice before having anyone of their company say that to a reporter:
"We certainly considered whether or not loot boxes would constitute as gambling," said Vance. "We don't believe it does. We think it's a fun way to acquire virtual items for use within the game."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, really? Can she suck that lobbying dick a little bit less? We can't understand what she's saying while they're so deep in her mouth.
 
Last edited:
aabbcc said:
This does not matter. You are clearly not reading the legal definition of gambling.

You pay money for the chance to gamble, this is enough to fulfill the first part of the definition. Whether you can sell loot boxes to the bank does not matter.
The contents of the loot box are content to chance. This fulfills the second part of the definition. It does not matter if it always contains 'something'. There is absolutely nothing on the law that says you get to not call it gambling if you always offer pithy prizes.
You obtain something 'of value', it does not define 'of value' as something you can deposit in a bank. Given people are gambling money to obtain it, and people are reselling these things in pretty much every system with lootboxes or booster packs where reselling is even remotely possible, then it is clearly of value.

It. Is. Gambling.

Whether it is illegal gambling or not is trickier to define because it depends on state legislation. Yes, the federal definition of illegal gambling is "it violates the state's specific legislation, it has more than 5 people involved, and it's been running for more than x time with more than 2000$ of money involved", since just about every game easily fulfills the later two conditions, it's up to each state if it's illegal there or not.
For some, any gambling done by minors is illegal, and much like buying alcohol or smokes, "it's the parent's responsibility to restrict the kid's access to money and watch what they buy" absolutely does not fly.

The ESRB is not empowered to decide whether something is gambling, and if you hunt down Vance's more complete quotes to Kotaku? Everything that flows out of her mouth is such sheer corporate shilling that even EA would think twice before having anyone of their company say that to a reporter:

I mean, really? Can she suck that lobbying dick a little bit less? We can't understand what she's saying while they're so deep in her mouth.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No I read the definition. I just don't think it applies here. Please cite the legal precedent (I.e. the court decision, act of legislation, or regulatory guidelines) that define lootboxes as a form of gambling.

As to the question of value, perhaps I should expand on my point. If you buy a lootbox, you will get digital content from that box. You may not get something that you like, but you will get something. I don't see how the presence of risk alone will makes a transaction into gambling.

Incidentally, given what you said before about trading card games, should these types of games therefore receive an 'adults only' designation from the ESRB since that's what they usually do to such games? (Note that this would include online games such as hearthstone as well.)

Lastly, I love how your immediate criticism of a woman's argument involves comparing it to fellatio, but you do realize that's not actually a counterpoint? I mean, you didn't actually try to refute her argument there.
 
Incidentally, this whole lootboxes controversy is really reminding me of the bad old days with Jack Thompson and his merry bunch of censors. Even the "Think of the children!!!" Arguments are similar...
 
Dormin said:
No I read the definition. I just don't think it applies here. Please cite the legal precedent (I.e. the court decision, act of legislation, or regulatory guidelines) that define lootboxes as a form of gambling.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Are you trolling? Since you've clearly spent more than five minutes googling the topic, you must already know that countries legal systems are barely starting on the topic.

Dormin said:
As to the question of value, perhaps I should expand on my point. If you buy a lootbox, you will get digital content from that box. You may not get something that you like, but you will get something. I don't see how the presence of risk alone will makes a transaction into gambling.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The legal definition of gambling does not care that you get pithy prizes when the roulette doesn't favor you. It only cares that there is a roulette that affects the outcome. There is absolutely nothing in the law that gives a pass if you always win some crap loot.

Dormin said:
Incidentally, given what you said before about trading card games, should these types of games therefore receive an 'adults only' designation from the ESRB since that's what they usually do to such games? (Note that this would include online games such as hearthstone as well.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This depends on location since not all state laws regarding gambling are equal, but for those where it is illegal to gamble underage, then they should.

Dormin said:
Lastly, I love how your immediate criticism of a woman's argument involves comparing it to fellatio, but you do realize that's not actually a counterpoint? I mean, you didn't actually try to refute her argument there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I would have used the same wording if it were a man, in fact, I had thought it was one when I first wrote it, only to edit the gender references on the paragraph later before posting. I do not need to offer a counter argument to brainless corporate shilling who's only talking points are points I have already countered. Nor am I in a discussion with her.

Dormin said:
Incidentally, this whole lootboxes controversy is really reminding me of the bad old days with Jack Thompson and his merry bunch of censors. Even the "Think of the children!!!" Arguments are similar...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Gambling has a well-known psychological effect, the undeveloped impulse control of children is also well-known. Preying on the later with the former is already scummy for one thing to do it, let alone by a large chunk of the videogaming industry.
 
How I see micro transactioon is that they are evil form gambling not in sense they offer random reward for money otherwise collectible trading cards and toys in my Breakfast Cereal could als count as micto trransactras. I hate them because companies use methods that Casinos use to literally capture players. To trigger reaction in our brains to spend and spend and spend until it end with cruel fact that Casino always wins. Not the players.

Cards and toys are not using same end goal. But video games with microtransactions no longer care about players benefit. Its company and investors that must be ones to be pleased with the product. Companies spend millions on researching and developing methods to trigger these spending habits, to prey on people weakness instead delivering a memorable product that players will cherish.

It's a pure pro investor method of earning money, instead mutual relationship of trust between company and consumer.

So that's why I'm on side that microtransaction should be regulated. Because it's disgustingly predatory practice of company avarice that is not controlled and IMHO its bound to get worse if we don't act.
 
Raven1138 said:
Hideo Kojima's next game, Death Stranding, now has a release date of November 8th. And no, I still have no idea what is going on
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's about Kojima stroking his pseudo-philosophical boner, like Yoko Taro did with Nier Automata, except with far less skill and a much higher budget. Also, less titties and ass. That part is probably the most important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top