Due to a security update, you may have to reset your password. Don’t panic, nothing has gone wrong and your password is safe. If you don’t have access to that email, send Tube a message at [email protected] More info here: https://status.vanillaforums.com/incidents/2zdqxf3bt7mj
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Lootboxes, Microtransactions, and [Gambling in Gaming]

1343537394062

Posts

  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Actually now that I think about it.

    I think the core of my 'treat them the same' impulse was honed in the other direction.

    Too many silicon valley types disrupting industries by just ignoring laws because hey it's all digital so it's somehow different, man

    amusing to see the physical side making the argument for once

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    If everything gambling-ey had to have explicit drop rates, no fuzzing of data/unintuitive rarity mechanics, no pity timers or other drop rate modifications, and proof you're at least 13/16/18/21 or w/e to purchase I think it'd be a very solid starting ground, though admittedly the lower age limits there are a concession to prevent totally destroying markets for games aimed at teenagers.

    Just a crazy idea, but maybe games with gambling elements for merchandise shouldn't even be allowed for minors at all?

    IncenjucarTaranis
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    milski wrote: »
    I think there could stand to be some additional regulation on CCGs; making the actual odds of everything clear and explicit on each pack would be helpful, along with making all cards of a stated rarity equivalent (e.g. no mythic rares that are 5x rarer than other mythics).

    Beyond that, we're in the age-restrict purchase/ban them without a gambling license territory, and while I can see the argument for the former I am not certain about it.

    I'm pretty sure both of those are true of MTG. If not I would like a citation. And unless there is evidence that some companies are being dishonest with print runs I don't see any reason to attempt regulation against something that isn't happening.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    HamHamJ wrote:
    milski wrote: »
    I think there could stand to be some additional regulation on CCGs; making the actual odds of everything clear and explicit on each pack would be helpful, along with making all cards of a stated rarity equivalent (e.g. no mythic rares that are 5x rarer than other mythics).

    Beyond that, we're in the age-restrict purchase/ban them without a gambling license territory, and while I can see the argument for the former I am not certain about it.

    I'm pretty sure both of those are true of MTG. If not I would like a citation. And unless there is evidence that some companies are being dishonest with print runs I don't see any reason to attempt regulation against something that isn't happening.

    The current situation with lootboxes is a pretty great example of exactly why these things should be considered for regulation now, instead of waiting until somebody turns it into a huge problem.

    In the overall scale, the lootbox situation is obviously the more pressing and significant, but it doesn't mean everything besides lootboxes should just be ignored until somebody makes it a problem.

    Ninja Snarl P on
    PolaritieTaranis
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    The difference between me selling a booster pack of magic cards, and me selling a random roll for magic items in a 4e d&d game I'm running for real world cash is pretty obvious.

    Gacha games and loot boxes are that second one.

    Both are gambling to an extent. One is markedly more exploitative than the other.
    Is it?
    Does a digital book have value?
    Does a mmo expansion or dlc?
    Why wouldn't a magical item in my d&d campaign have value?

    Lootboxes (as they are), may be less exploitative than MtG booster packs (as they are), but i don't think it is because one has digital items and others physical ones.
    Which is more predatory depends more on business practices, not on physical v digital divide.

    No they don't, the video game industry is currently massively exploitative at its core, and at almost every level internally too. DLC is 100% exploitative as shit, especially if it's the only means by which to get "the real ending"

    Digital books don't have the same value as real books that's why they are cheaper.

    All the ephemeral shit we buy in the internet that depends on the provider still agreeing that we can use the service we paid money into to get an item are inherently exploitative. This is definitely one of those things no one's noticed as it was happening, and has resulted in folks just accepting that the ephemeral data connections are the same as a concrete item. They aren't. Your songs on iTunes? Exploitative. You don't actually own those pieces of media in any way, you can't hand them off and if apple decides so they can just ban you and take away all the things you bought. The ephemeralities of our current cyberpunk nightmare don't make it so a database connection saying I'm allowed to have x file is equivalent to me actually owning a record. Those things are not the same in any real sense. They are massively different and the difference in cost between those things illustrates that fact already.
    Netflix? MMO's in general?
    Going to a movie is not inherently exploitative just because the experience is short lived.
    MMO's are not inherently exploitative just because servers eventually shut down.
    Loot boxes are not inherently exploitative because they are digital.

    I think you are too focused on the non permanence of the loot boxes as the core of the issue.

    Loot boxes are not inherantly exploitative. IF a game had loot boxes BUT

    1) Items can be freely traded between players
    2) Items can be sold and exchanged between players

    Then, depending on how the game is structured around those items (for example, if every item is a consumable, then the marketplace wont help much) you can produce a fair game.

    Effectively the rule I would place on all digital lootbox games is...

    1) Items in lootboxes must be durable inside the game, they cannot be 'single use'
    2) Lootbox items must be freely tradeable with other players for no fee
    3) The game must not forbid the sale of lootbox items to other players for cash, or the equivalent
    4) Items must lose no value (IE, banned from tournement play) when they are transferred
    5) Games which can have no market (single player games) may not include pay to open lootboxes, unless those lootboxes are paid for by 'player time'

    If an item does not meet all these terms, but is included in a 'pay to obtain' expansion set which might include 'randomly' generated items then access to rerolls on those items may only be limited by player time investment and gameplay. IE, if you buy a new dungeon DLC for your game, and the chest in that dungeon might contain 1/10 special items, then the only barrier to rolling again on that table must be playing the content again.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    Doodmann
  • milskimilski UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    I think there could stand to be some additional regulation on CCGs; making the actual odds of everything clear and explicit on each pack would be helpful, along with making all cards of a stated rarity equivalent (e.g. no mythic rares that are 5x rarer than other mythics).

    Beyond that, we're in the age-restrict purchase/ban them without a gambling license territory, and while I can see the argument for the former I am not certain about it.

    I'm pretty sure both of those are true of MTG. If not I would like a citation. And unless there is evidence that some companies are being dishonest with print runs I don't see any reason to attempt regulation against something that isn't happening.

    I don't believe packs have odds on them*, and there are certain concessions each set that change the odds (e.g. M19 had low odds of a tapland in each pack). And while they don't currently fuzz odds, previously they have done so, though primarily due to a lack of rigor and the method in which they printed cards rather than any intentional fuzzing. Further, the regulation was meant to aim at all TCGs, and I know at least Yu-Gi-Oh has engaged in hot bullshit with their unintuitive rarity system.

    *E: I found a picture of a 2015 booster pack. The only odds it stated were "premium card rarity ~1:15", which just says every pack has a rare or mythic. It doesn't take into account foils or differentiate between the two "rare" rarities.
    milski wrote: »
    If everything gambling-ey had to have explicit drop rates, no fuzzing of data/unintuitive rarity mechanics, no pity timers or other drop rate modifications, and proof you're at least 13/16/18/21 or w/e to purchase I think it'd be a very solid starting ground, though admittedly the lower age limits there are a concession to prevent totally destroying markets for games aimed at teenagers.

    Just a crazy idea, but maybe games with gambling elements for merchandise shouldn't even be allowed for minors at all?

    As I said, the lower end of those age limits was meant to be a concession to keep games from being utterly destroyed. I am not convinced that the least exploitative random distribution methods are nevertheless so exploitative they deserve a de facto ban from being played at all, and I feel that it is possible allowing sales to teenagers but not younger people strikes a fair middle ground.

    milski on
    You can't write me off like that! You're just a voice, pal! You don't know a DAMN THING ABOUT RACING!!
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote:
    milski wrote: »
    I think there could stand to be some additional regulation on CCGs; making the actual odds of everything clear and explicit on each pack would be helpful, along with making all cards of a stated rarity equivalent (e.g. no mythic rares that are 5x rarer than other mythics).

    Beyond that, we're in the age-restrict purchase/ban them without a gambling license territory, and while I can see the argument for the former I am not certain about it.

    I'm pretty sure both of those are true of MTG. If not I would like a citation. And unless there is evidence that some companies are being dishonest with print runs I don't see any reason to attempt regulation against something that isn't happening.

    The current situation with lootboxes is a pretty great example of exactly why these things should be considered for regulation now, instead of waiting until somebody turns it into a huge problem.

    In the overall scale, the lootbox situation is obviously the more pressing and significant, but it doesn't mean everything besides lootboxes should just be ignored until somebody makes it a problem.

    CCGs have been around for a long time. It seems a waste of public money to create or expand agencies to send inspectors to China or wherever to verify print runs when it would be pretty obvious to large retailers like Star City if the rarity of a given card was way off from what it should be. Like, I can think of a lot of reasons why CCG companies wouldn't bother trying to do this sort of thing.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    The difference between me selling a booster pack of magic cards, and me selling a random roll for magic items in a 4e d&d game I'm running for real world cash is pretty obvious.

    Gacha games and loot boxes are that second one.

    Both are gambling to an extent. One is markedly more exploitative than the other.
    Is it?
    Does a digital book have value?
    Does a mmo expansion or dlc?
    Why wouldn't a magical item in my d&d campaign have value?

    Lootboxes (as they are), may be less exploitative than MtG booster packs (as they are), but i don't think it is because one has digital items and others physical ones.
    Which is more predatory depends more on business practices, not on physical v digital divide.

    No they don't, the video game industry is currently massively exploitative at its core, and at almost every level internally too. DLC is 100% exploitative as shit, especially if it's the only means by which to get "the real ending"

    Digital books don't have the same value as real books that's why they are cheaper.

    All the ephemeral shit we buy in the internet that depends on the provider still agreeing that we can use the service we paid money into to get an item are inherently exploitative. This is definitely one of those things no one's noticed as it was happening, and has resulted in folks just accepting that the ephemeral data connections are the same as a concrete item. They aren't. Your songs on iTunes? Exploitative. You don't actually own those pieces of media in any way, you can't hand them off and if apple decides so they can just ban you and take away all the things you bought. The ephemeralities of our current cyberpunk nightmare don't make it so a database connection saying I'm allowed to have x file is equivalent to me actually owning a record. Those things are not the same in any real sense. They are massively different and the difference in cost between those things illustrates that fact already.
    Netflix? MMO's in general?
    Going to a movie is not inherently exploitative just because the experience is short lived.
    MMO's are not inherently exploitative just because servers eventually shut down.
    Loot boxes are not inherently exploitative because they are digital.

    I think you are too focused on the non permanence of the loot boxes as the core of the issue.

    Loot boxes are not inherantly exploitative. IF a game had loot boxes BUT

    1) Items can be freely traded between players
    2) Items can be sold and exchanged between players

    Then, depending on how the game is structured around those items (for example, if every item is a consumable, then the marketplace wont help much) you can produce a fair game.

    Effectively the rule I would place on all digital lootbox games is...

    1) Items in lootboxes must be durable inside the game, they cannot be 'single use'
    2) Lootbox items must be freely tradeable with other players for no fee
    3) The game must not forbid the sale of lootbox items to other players for cash, or the equivalent
    4) Items must lose no value (IE, banned from tournement play) when they are transferred
    5) Games which can have no market (single player games) may not include pay to open lootboxes, unless those lootboxes are paid for by 'player time'

    If an item does not meet all these terms, but is included in a 'pay to obtain' expansion set which might include 'randomly' generated items then access to rerolls on those items may only be limited by player time investment and gameplay. IE, if you buy a new dungeon DLC for your game, and the chest in that dungeon might contain 1/10 special items, then the only barrier to rolling again on that table must be playing the content again.


    I buy a loot box with items of a random value.
    Based off the market, those items will have a total median value about what I payed.
    But it will be greater or less based on random chance.
    I sell those items for real money.

    How is the outcome of that meaningfully different than gambling?

    This machine kills threads.
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    The difference between me selling a booster pack of magic cards, and me selling a random roll for magic items in a 4e d&d game I'm running for real world cash is pretty obvious.

    Gacha games and loot boxes are that second one.

    Both are gambling to an extent. One is markedly more exploitative than the other.
    Is it?
    Does a digital book have value?
    Does a mmo expansion or dlc?
    Why wouldn't a magical item in my d&d campaign have value?

    Lootboxes (as they are), may be less exploitative than MtG booster packs (as they are), but i don't think it is because one has digital items and others physical ones.
    Which is more predatory depends more on business practices, not on physical v digital divide.

    No they don't, the video game industry is currently massively exploitative at its core, and at almost every level internally too. DLC is 100% exploitative as shit, especially if it's the only means by which to get "the real ending"

    Digital books don't have the same value as real books that's why they are cheaper.

    All the ephemeral shit we buy in the internet that depends on the provider still agreeing that we can use the service we paid money into to get an item are inherently exploitative. This is definitely one of those things no one's noticed as it was happening, and has resulted in folks just accepting that the ephemeral data connections are the same as a concrete item. They aren't. Your songs on iTunes? Exploitative. You don't actually own those pieces of media in any way, you can't hand them off and if apple decides so they can just ban you and take away all the things you bought. The ephemeralities of our current cyberpunk nightmare don't make it so a database connection saying I'm allowed to have x file is equivalent to me actually owning a record. Those things are not the same in any real sense. They are massively different and the difference in cost between those things illustrates that fact already.

    Might as just go all the way and say
    Computers are inherently exploitative

    That physical game you "own?" Good luck finding a console that work in 20 years to play it - assuming the disc hasn't degraded enough that it is still readable. The classic 8/16-bit era consoles were as simple as dirt and mostly still work but xbox 360s die off like flies, and there is a life expectancy for everything, plus the modern consoles are hopelessly dependent on getting online - eventually a game will demand the system update itself (after you get a new console when your current one dies) and either you won't be able to find a router to connect the console, or the patches won't be hosted anywhere, and no more game

    PC is a bit better because of an effort on the part of microsoft and intel/amd to ensure older applications continue to work, but even then I simply cannot run some of the more poorly written games from the early 2000s on my older machine, much less my current one

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • DacDac Registered User regular
    Physical CCG's are, essentially, still skinner boxes. And yeah, they do try and make the opening of them more appealing - from the packaging design, the kind of foil used and how it crinkles, all the way down to the smell released when they're opened. They do try and make it as appealing as possible, which is part of why, if you hung around places that sold booster packs, you know that kid that buys a whole BOX of the damn things with several weeks worth of allowance. While they were looking for 'rare cards'/foils/etc., there's always that little high to have, and that thrill of finding something cool. Plus, some people are just completionists by nature. So yes, the base principles are the same. The difference is in the level of presentation, the availability of a bartering system, and to some degree, the target audience.

    As appealing as they try to make them, CCGs just can't hope to have the same impactful presentation as a slot roulette or lootbox. Overwatch showers you in light, trembling of your pack before it explodes with goodies, and a musical fanfare. Slot roulettes do the same thing - colorful flashing lights, pleasing tones and dings, a moment of suspense before the result cashes out to a tune.

    And even if a card game could do that, CCGs are typically angled towards a younger audience. An audience that, by and large, doesn't have thousands of dollars that they can spend on cards even if they wanted to. How much allowance do kids get these days? Ten a week? Twenty? There's not the potential for endless purchases, because that kid will tap out their available funds pretty quickly. Even if they did what some kids do in OW and steal their parent's credit card to try and buy cards, the physical store owner can step in and say "nah son," because they'd actually be held partly responsible and have some accountability if they irresponsibly allowed that kid to dump four figures on the store's stock of cards.

    And, IMO, most importantly, a physical card game's random nature can be circumvented. A bartering system exists. Having difficulty finding a rare card? Someone's gonna have it for sale. You can get everything you need by exchanging with other players. (Shit, IIRC, some tournaments don't even require you actually OWN a card to use it, you can just print it out and treat it as that card as long as it's tourney legal.) Lots of video games with lootboxes do not have this. Even if they have an in-game currency, like OW, it can't always be used to get the thing that you want, or might just be used to buy more boxes. And even if you CAN you use it to buy the thing you want, again like OW, they make it a monotonous grind to obtain in a clear attempt to push you to buy boxes.

    So yeah, while CCGs and lootboxes are the same at their base as skinner boxes, there's plenty of differences in terms of scale, audience, accountability, and available acquisition options that pushes lootboxes away from CCG "money trap for kids" territory and into the realm of "this is a machine that belongs on the floor of a casino."

    Steam: catseye543
    PSN: ShogunGunshow
    Origin: ShogunGunshow
  • milskimilski UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ Registered User regular
    MTG tournaments require you to play with cards you own, with only a few exceptions, most of which require you have to have proof you own the card and that it's a foil-only card or something else that WOTC did to make it impossible to get a card that's legal.

    You can't write me off like that! You're just a voice, pal! You don't know a DAMN THING ABOUT RACING!!
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    redx wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    The difference between me selling a booster pack of magic cards, and me selling a random roll for magic items in a 4e d&d game I'm running for real world cash is pretty obvious.

    Gacha games and loot boxes are that second one.

    Both are gambling to an extent. One is markedly more exploitative than the other.
    Is it?
    Does a digital book have value?
    Does a mmo expansion or dlc?
    Why wouldn't a magical item in my d&d campaign have value?

    Lootboxes (as they are), may be less exploitative than MtG booster packs (as they are), but i don't think it is because one has digital items and others physical ones.
    Which is more predatory depends more on business practices, not on physical v digital divide.

    No they don't, the video game industry is currently massively exploitative at its core, and at almost every level internally too. DLC is 100% exploitative as shit, especially if it's the only means by which to get "the real ending"

    Digital books don't have the same value as real books that's why they are cheaper.

    All the ephemeral shit we buy in the internet that depends on the provider still agreeing that we can use the service we paid money into to get an item are inherently exploitative. This is definitely one of those things no one's noticed as it was happening, and has resulted in folks just accepting that the ephemeral data connections are the same as a concrete item. They aren't. Your songs on iTunes? Exploitative. You don't actually own those pieces of media in any way, you can't hand them off and if apple decides so they can just ban you and take away all the things you bought. The ephemeralities of our current cyberpunk nightmare don't make it so a database connection saying I'm allowed to have x file is equivalent to me actually owning a record. Those things are not the same in any real sense. They are massively different and the difference in cost between those things illustrates that fact already.
    Netflix? MMO's in general?
    Going to a movie is not inherently exploitative just because the experience is short lived.
    MMO's are not inherently exploitative just because servers eventually shut down.
    Loot boxes are not inherently exploitative because they are digital.

    I think you are too focused on the non permanence of the loot boxes as the core of the issue.

    Loot boxes are not inherantly exploitative. IF a game had loot boxes BUT

    1) Items can be freely traded between players
    2) Items can be sold and exchanged between players

    Then, depending on how the game is structured around those items (for example, if every item is a consumable, then the marketplace wont help much) you can produce a fair game.

    Effectively the rule I would place on all digital lootbox games is...

    1) Items in lootboxes must be durable inside the game, they cannot be 'single use'
    2) Lootbox items must be freely tradeable with other players for no fee
    3) The game must not forbid the sale of lootbox items to other players for cash, or the equivalent
    4) Items must lose no value (IE, banned from tournement play) when they are transferred
    5) Games which can have no market (single player games) may not include pay to open lootboxes, unless those lootboxes are paid for by 'player time'

    If an item does not meet all these terms, but is included in a 'pay to obtain' expansion set which might include 'randomly' generated items then access to rerolls on those items may only be limited by player time investment and gameplay. IE, if you buy a new dungeon DLC for your game, and the chest in that dungeon might contain 1/10 special items, then the only barrier to rolling again on that table must be playing the content again.


    I buy a loot box with items of a random value.
    Based off the market, those items will have a total median value about what I payed.
    But it will be greater or less based on random chance.
    I sell those items for real money.

    How is the outcome of that meaningfully different than gambling?

    I buy a box containing durable items with a known value -> I buy 1 lottery ticket for $1
    Based off the market, those items will initially have a total median value for resale less than what I paid -> The ticket is now worth slightly less than a dollar
    But, over time the value of those items will become greater or less based on random chance -> The drawing occurs. I win $2!
    I sell those items for real money -> I get $1!

    This describes buying a lottery ticket. Lets ban that gambling, but I also just banned antiquing by that simple definition! And collecting comic books! And like, buying jewelry.

    I buy 1 17th century armoire for $10000
    The armoire is now worth $9000 if I try to resell it
    Martha Stewart decrees that all fine homes must contain an Armoire. The Armoire is worth $50000
    I get $40000!

    The problem is the lack of control of the items, the lack of a fair value marketplace and the complete control over those items which is retained by the game devs. Once you get beyond a few of those, which you absolutely do in every real world game, then you can talk about what the game is and how it works and decide whether the behavior is predatory (Lottery tickets) or not predatory (Antiquing)

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    MTG tournaments require you to play with cards you own, with only a few exceptions, most of which require you have to have proof you own the card and that it's a foil-only card or something else that WOTC did to make it impossible to get a card that's legal.

    Tournament play really is a minority of overall Magic play.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • milskimilski UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    MTG tournaments require you to play with cards you own, with only a few exceptions, most of which require you have to have proof you own the card and that it's a foil-only card or something else that WOTC did to make it impossible to get a card that's legal.

    Tournament play really is a minority of overall Magic play.

    I was responding to the specific part of the post where it was asserted you could use proxies for tournament play

    You can't write me off like that! You're just a voice, pal! You don't know a DAMN THING ABOUT RACING!!
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    MTG tournaments require you to play with cards you own, with only a few exceptions, most of which require you have to have proof you own the card and that it's a foil-only card or something else that WOTC did to make it impossible to get a card that's legal.

    Tournament play really is a minority of overall Magic play.

    I was responding to the specific part of the post where it was asserted you could use proxies for tournament play

    Well to be completely fair 10 proxy Vintage was a bigish thing at least when I was playing.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    It seems a little odd to me how minors are thought of as the major concern in all this.

    I mean kids don't have a mortgage or a car payment or alimony. If lil' Timmy spends his whole month's allowance on Overwatch loot boxes, who really gives a shit?

    I would've thought the concern would be more for the 24-year-old that blows his rent money on CS:GO skins.

    RT800 on
    HamHamJSleepTofystedeth
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    .
    RT800 wrote: »
    It seems a little odd to me how minors are thought of as the major concern in all this.

    I mean kids don't have a mortgage or a car payment or alimony. If lil' Timmy spends his whole month's allowance on Overwatch loot boxes, who really gives a shit?

    I would've thought the concern would be more for the 24-year-old that blows his rent money on CS:GO skins.

    Lil Timmy is developing a gambling habit, a vice.

    DacjammuElvenshaeNyysjanIanatorMegaMekIncenjucarJragghenMan in the MistsshoeboxjeddyN1tSt4lkerTofystedethabotkinJeep-EepKristmas Kthulhu
  • DacDac Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    As far as 24-year old Timmy goes, he's an adult. As long as he's aware that the thing that he's doing is considered gambling, and it's legal in his state/country, that's sadly on him. While I think we do need to make certain that the activity is recognized and regulated appropriately for what it is, I can't stop Timmy from doing that if his region allows it.

    Dac on
    Steam: catseye543
    PSN: ShogunGunshow
    Origin: ShogunGunshow
  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    Well my overall point is that "gambling addiction" seems like an affliction that could strike at any age - but if you're a minor, it's actually less devastating since you (probably) don't need the money.

    Is the argument that children are more likely than adults to become addicted to gambling?

    RT800 on
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    .
    RT800 wrote: »
    It seems a little odd to me how minors are thought of as the major concern in all this.

    I mean kids don't have a mortgage or a car payment or alimony. If lil' Timmy spends his whole month's allowance on Overwatch loot boxes, who really gives a shit?

    I would've thought the concern would be more for the 24-year-old that blows his rent money on CS:GO skins.

    Lil Timmy is developing a gambling habit, a vice.

    Or learning the valuable lesson that if he melts all his allowance into boosters he won't have money to see a movie this weekend, or save up for a tv for his room. I mean that's what I learned from boosters when I was a kid. That they are effectively burning 5 bucks to the ground for a few minutes of fun and the very remote off chance you might get something useful. Kinda like buying a shitty slinky.

    If i wanted to play the game of magic i just bought preconstructed decks or less randomized box sets.

    Sleep on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Dac wrote: »
    As far as 24-year old Timmy goes, he's an adult. As long as he's aware that the thing that he's doing is considered gambling, and it's legal in his state/country, that's sadly on him. While I think we do need to make certain that the activity is recognized and regulated appropriately for what it is, I can't stop Timmy from doing that if his region allows it.

    Well yes but goosily yes. Because the point we are discussing is whether or not it should be regulated to prevent those abuses. Just like we don’t say “well 24-year old Timmy is an adult and so we totally cannot stop him from doing loads of Heroin”

    wbBv3fj.png
    SleepBethrynshrykeEtiowsaJeep-EepLord_AsmodeusshoeboxjeddyTaranis
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    .
    RT800 wrote: »
    It seems a little odd to me how minors are thought of as the major concern in all this.

    I mean kids don't have a mortgage or a car payment or alimony. If lil' Timmy spends his whole month's allowance on Overwatch loot boxes, who really gives a shit?

    I would've thought the concern would be more for the 24-year-old that blows his rent money on CS:GO skins.

    Lil Timmy is developing a gambling habit, a vice.

    Then Lil' timmy is at danger for developing a dangerous behavioral addiction from playing monopoly. In reality, there is not clear evidence that exposing children to events with natural rewards (say eating ice cream) is inherently dangerous.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • BethrynBethryn Registered User regular
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Then Lil' timmy is at danger for developing a dangerous behavioral addiction from playing monopoly. In reality, there is not clear evidence that exposing children to events with natural rewards (say eating ice cream) is inherently dangerous.
    No, for the simple reason that at no point does monopoly teach you that paying more cash to Hasbro gets you more rolls of the dice. There are plenty of ways you interact with randomness that are not the same as engaging in gambling behaviour.

    ElvenshaeEtiowsaMan in the MistsshoeboxjeddyTaranisN1tSt4lkerabotkinJeep-EepKristmas Kthulhu
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Is there any evidence that gambling addiction is something you learn?

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    Bethryn wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    .
    RT800 wrote: »
    It seems a little odd to me how minors are thought of as the major concern in all this.

    I mean kids don't have a mortgage or a car payment or alimony. If lil' Timmy spends his whole month's allowance on Overwatch loot boxes, who really gives a shit?

    I would've thought the concern would be more for the 24-year-old that blows his rent money on CS:GO skins.

    Lil Timmy is developing a gambling habit, a vice.

    Then Lil' timmy is at danger for developing a dangerous behavioral addiction from playing monopoly. In reality, there is not clear evidence that exposing children to events with natural rewards (say eating ice cream) is inherently dangerous.

    No, for the simple reason that at no point does monopoly teach you that paying more cash to Hasbro gets you more rolls of the dice. There are plenty of ways you interact with randomness that are not the same as engaging in gambling behaviour.

    The argument I was countering is that children are in facing an inherent danger of developing bad habits by being exposed to reward mechanisms. Monopoly is just an example of a game of chance with natural rewards, but there are other simpler examples. Playing the card game "21" with marbles is one.

    There is not good evidence that letting Lil' Timmy engage in pleasure seeking activities will manufacture in him a compulsive behavior.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • evilmrhenryevilmrhenry Registered User regular
    I mean, there's no requirement for laws to be philosophically coherent. You can totally ban lootboxes while ignoring physical CCGs with exactly the same mechanics because they haven't been creating trouble.

    AridholFencingsaxElvenshaeMegaMekMan in the MistsshoeboxjeddyTaranisabotkin
  • BethrynBethryn Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Is there any evidence that gambling addiction is something you learn?
    Most of the research on gambling addictions model it as a learned behavioural addiction, and the responses we've developed using that model have been successful. If it isn't a learned behaviour, it's occurring concurrently with standard behavioural learning.

    Jeep-Eep
  • DacDac Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    As far as 24-year old Timmy goes, he's an adult. As long as he's aware that the thing that he's doing is considered gambling, and it's legal in his state/country, that's sadly on him. While I think we do need to make certain that the activity is recognized and regulated appropriately for what it is, I can't stop Timmy from doing that if his region allows it.

    Well yes but goosily yes. Because the point we are discussing is whether or not it should be regulated to prevent those abuses. Just like we don’t say “well 24-year old Timmy is an adult and so we totally cannot stop him from doing loads of Heroin”

    Yeah. Absolutely.

    But that's less an issue of lootboxes specifically and more getting that kind of slot roulette gambling outlawed PERIOD once we're talking about adults, which is something that my state, California, has done, but is not nationwide.

    Sorry if I was unclear.

    Dac on
    Steam: catseye543
    PSN: ShogunGunshow
    Origin: ShogunGunshow
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    Dac wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    As far as 24-year old Timmy goes, he's an adult. As long as he's aware that the thing that he's doing is considered gambling, and it's legal in his state/country, that's sadly on him. While I think we do need to make certain that the activity is recognized and regulated appropriately for what it is, I can't stop Timmy from doing that if his region allows it.

    Well yes but goosily yes. Because the point we are discussing is whether or not it should be regulated to prevent those abuses. Just like we don’t say “well 24-year old Timmy is an adult and so we totally cannot stop him from doing loads of Heroin”

    Yeah. Absolutely.

    But that's less an issue of lootboxes specifically and more getting that kind of slot roulette gambling outlawed PERIOD once we're talking about adults, which is something that my state, California, has done, but is not nationwide.

    Sorry if I was unclear.

    So is it that you think all gambling should be illegal everywhere, or just specifically slots?

    Cause prohibition doesn't really work the way most folks wish it would

    Sleep on
  • Jeep-EepJeep-Eep Registered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    .
    RT800 wrote: »
    It seems a little odd to me how minors are thought of as the major concern in all this.

    I mean kids don't have a mortgage or a car payment or alimony. If lil' Timmy spends his whole month's allowance on Overwatch loot boxes, who really gives a shit?

    I would've thought the concern would be more for the 24-year-old that blows his rent money on CS:GO skins.

    Lil Timmy is developing a gambling habit, a vice.

    And apparently there's literature that suggests that gambling habits created then tend to be especially bad.

    I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
  • DacDac Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    As far as 24-year old Timmy goes, he's an adult. As long as he's aware that the thing that he's doing is considered gambling, and it's legal in his state/country, that's sadly on him. While I think we do need to make certain that the activity is recognized and regulated appropriately for what it is, I can't stop Timmy from doing that if his region allows it.

    Well yes but goosily yes. Because the point we are discussing is whether or not it should be regulated to prevent those abuses. Just like we don’t say “well 24-year old Timmy is an adult and so we totally cannot stop him from doing loads of Heroin”

    Yeah. Absolutely.

    But that's less an issue of lootboxes specifically and more getting that kind of slot roulette gambling outlawed PERIOD once we're talking about adults, which is something that my state, California, has done, but is not nationwide.

    Sorry if I was unclear.

    So is it that you think all gambling should be illegal everywhere, or just specifically slots?

    Cause prohibition doesn't really work the way most folks wish it would

    Roulette-like pay-per-play skinner box mechanics? Yeah, I think those could stand to be outlawed.

    Steam: catseye543
    PSN: ShogunGunshow
    Origin: ShogunGunshow
    shrykeMegaMekMan in the MistsHefflingGennenalyse RuebenQuidLord_AsmodeusabotkinKristmas Kthulhu
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    Dac wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    As far as 24-year old Timmy goes, he's an adult. As long as he's aware that the thing that he's doing is considered gambling, and it's legal in his state/country, that's sadly on him. While I think we do need to make certain that the activity is recognized and regulated appropriately for what it is, I can't stop Timmy from doing that if his region allows it.

    Well yes but goosily yes. Because the point we are discussing is whether or not it should be regulated to prevent those abuses. Just like we don’t say “well 24-year old Timmy is an adult and so we totally cannot stop him from doing loads of Heroin”

    Yeah. Absolutely.

    But that's less an issue of lootboxes specifically and more getting that kind of slot roulette gambling outlawed PERIOD once we're talking about adults, which is something that my state, California, has done, but is not nationwide.

    Sorry if I was unclear.

    So is it that you think all gambling should be illegal everywhere, or just specifically slots?

    Cause prohibition doesn't really work the way most folks wish it would

    Roulette-like pay-per-play skinner box mechanics? Yeah, I think those could stand to be outlawed.

    So like table games like craps and roulette and blackjack are different or do those count as well as video versions of them?

    Sleep on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    As far as 24-year old Timmy goes, he's an adult. As long as he's aware that the thing that he's doing is considered gambling, and it's legal in his state/country, that's sadly on him. While I think we do need to make certain that the activity is recognized and regulated appropriately for what it is, I can't stop Timmy from doing that if his region allows it.

    Well yes but goosily yes. Because the point we are discussing is whether or not it should be regulated to prevent those abuses. Just like we don’t say “well 24-year old Timmy is an adult and so we totally cannot stop him from doing loads of Heroin”

    Yeah. Absolutely.

    But that's less an issue of lootboxes specifically and more getting that kind of slot roulette gambling outlawed PERIOD once we're talking about adults, which is something that my state, California, has done, but is not nationwide.

    Sorry if I was unclear.

    So is it that you think all gambling should be illegal everywhere, or just specifically slots?

    Cause prohibition doesn't really work the way most folks wish it would

    How do prohibitions on gambling work then?

  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    I'm of the opinion that straight prohibition is not necessarily the way to go, but that all loot box/CCG pack/carnival luck game/MMO raid rewards should be directly purchasable from the game owner, and those games that then sell prizes above say $50 should be age restricted as gambling.
    A further higher threshold may need to be enforced banning games that continue to sell prizes for like $100K in line with a super rare item drop rate.

    discrider on
    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
    Incenjucar
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    It needs to be emphasized that "regulate" does not mean "ban". It means that you create requirements to ensure that people are not harmed and require companies to meet those requirements.

    SleepnavgooseMegaMekNyysjanMan in the Mistsdestroyah87Quid38thDoeVishNubN1tSt4lkerabotkinKristmas Kthulhu
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    As far as 24-year old Timmy goes, he's an adult. As long as he's aware that the thing that he's doing is considered gambling, and it's legal in his state/country, that's sadly on him. While I think we do need to make certain that the activity is recognized and regulated appropriately for what it is, I can't stop Timmy from doing that if his region allows it.

    Well yes but goosily yes. Because the point we are discussing is whether or not it should be regulated to prevent those abuses. Just like we don’t say “well 24-year old Timmy is an adult and so we totally cannot stop him from doing loads of Heroin”

    Yeah. Absolutely.

    But that's less an issue of lootboxes specifically and more getting that kind of slot roulette gambling outlawed PERIOD once we're talking about adults, which is something that my state, California, has done, but is not nationwide.

    Sorry if I was unclear.

    So is it that you think all gambling should be illegal everywhere, or just specifically slots?

    Cause prohibition doesn't really work the way most folks wish it would

    Roulette-like pay-per-play skinner box mechanics? Yeah, I think those could stand to be outlawed.

    So like table games like craps and roulette and blackjack are different or do those count as well as video versions of them?

    Well let's try regulating lootboxes like we regulate those activities and see how it works out?

    Gennenalyse RuebenMegaMekQuidElvenshae38thDoedestroyah87DacLord_AsmodeusTaranisSleepN1tSt4lkerabotkinshoeboxjeddy
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Bethryn wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    .
    RT800 wrote: »
    It seems a little odd to me how minors are thought of as the major concern in all this.

    I mean kids don't have a mortgage or a car payment or alimony. If lil' Timmy spends his whole month's allowance on Overwatch loot boxes, who really gives a shit?

    I would've thought the concern would be more for the 24-year-old that blows his rent money on CS:GO skins.

    Lil Timmy is developing a gambling habit, a vice.

    Then Lil' timmy is at danger for developing a dangerous behavioral addiction from playing monopoly. In reality, there is not clear evidence that exposing children to events with natural rewards (say eating ice cream) is inherently dangerous.

    No, for the simple reason that at no point does monopoly teach you that paying more cash to Hasbro gets you more rolls of the dice. There are plenty of ways you interact with randomness that are not the same as engaging in gambling behaviour.

    The argument I was countering is that children are in facing an inherent danger of developing bad habits by being exposed to reward mechanisms. Monopoly is just an example of a game of chance with natural rewards, but there are other simpler examples. Playing the card game "21" with marbles is one.

    There is not good evidence that letting Lil' Timmy engage in pleasure seeking activities will manufacture in him a compulsive behavior.

    Pleasure seeking activities like shooting heroine or smoking crack? Im sure there is PLENTY of evidence to show that it can indeed manufacture a compulsive behaviour.

    You will think my example is extreme, but that is the scope after you tried to deconstruct gambling for minors into a general "pleasure seeking activity".

  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Monopoly is a pain-delivery mechanism anyway, so it's not likely to be habit-forming.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
    BethrynElvenshaeCasualJeep-EepLoisLanePolaritieNyysjanFANTOMASmrondeauMegaMekLord_AsmodeusSleepMan in the MistsEtiowsaN1tSt4lkerTofystedethabotkinKristmas Kthulhu
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Also Monopoly is not a game of chance.

  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Also Monopoly is not a game of chance.

    Thawmus
Sign In or Register to comment.