Just ban digital gambling. MtG safe, FIFA not. (Obviously the wording would need to be sorted out, but the key difference is digital / non digital.)
Why? You can kill two birds with one 1/1 stone, they use the same mechanics, the same lures, they target the same vulnerable customers, why should we try to shield one, while trying to take the other down? Please explain this to me.
Because you want to use somewhat targeted legislation to get the foot in the door and then refine it. If it's overbroad it won't get out of committee.
Just ban digital gambling. MtG safe, FIFA not. (Obviously the wording would need to be sorted out, but the key difference is digital / non digital.)
Why? You can kill two birds with one 1/1 stone, they use the same mechanics, the same lures, they target the same vulnerable customers, why should we try to shield one, while trying to take the other down? Please explain this to me.
Because you want to use somewhat targeted legislation to get the foot in the door and then refine it. If it's overbroad it won't get out of committee.
It deosnt get more targetted than considering the specific mechanic as gambling, the digital distinction only works if you want to, for some reason I cant fathom, exclude a specific product. Or in short, you are giving me BS
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Just to re-iterate a point I made before as it appears it hasn't registered. No one is saying that the sales of hobbyist products, digital, or physical, needs to be regulated per se.
We're saying the practice of applying randomness and false scarcity to these products is abusive and predatory. Magic, as a product, is fine! Mobile games, as products in general, are fine! What's not fine is applying abuse and predatory marketing practices to these otherwise fine products to artificially drive up sales, which is basically asking your customers to pay money to potentially get something of no value to them in return.
The fact that Magic cards are physical items that can be sold in a secondary market does not excuse the predatory practice. It is still possible to buy a booster pack that contains nothing but duplicates of cards you already have, and who also have no inherent value on the secondary market. If that has happened to you, WoC have ripped you off, and that is not ok.
Just to re-iterate a point I made before as it appears it hasn't registered. No one is saying that the sales of hobbyist products, digital, or physical, needs to be regulated per se.
We're saying the practice of applying randomness and false scarcity to these products is abusive and predatory. Magic, as a product, is fine! Mobile games, as products in general, are fine! What's not fine is applying abuse and predatory marketing practices to these otherwise fine products to artificially drive up sales, which is basically asking your customers to pay money to potentially get something of no value to them in return.
The fact that Magic cards are physical items that can be sold in a secondary market does not excuse the predatory practice. It is still possible to buy a booster pack that contains nothing but duplicates of cards you already have, and who also have no inherent value on the secondary market. If that has happened to you, WoC have ripped you off, and that is not ok.
But wouldn’t the logical extension be that regulation is necessary?
I’m not really okay with identifying something as “not OK”/literally abusive and not taking it through toward some kind of regulation.
Also, I think it’s okay to identify something as problematic without having the perfect solution at our fingertips.
Just ban digital gambling. MtG safe, FIFA not. (Obviously the wording would need to be sorted out, but the key difference is digital / non digital.)
Why? You can kill two birds with one 1/1 stone, they use the same mechanics, the same lures, they target the same vulnerable customers, why should we try to shield one, while trying to take the other down? Please explain this to me.
Because you want to use somewhat targeted legislation to get the foot in the door and then refine it. If it's overbroad it won't get out of committee.
It deosnt get more targetted than considering the specific mechanic as gambling, the digital distinction only works if you want to, for some reason I cant fathom, exclude a specific product. Or in short, you are giving me BS
In my own case, it's not necessarily that I believe Magic and physical CCGs are different enough from lootboxes to be allowed when the other isn't. What I *am* concerned about is that ESA and video games are going to successfully use a slippery slope argument to scare off politicians from passing regulations on lootboxes. "You can't ban lootboxes without banning Magic, or Pokemon TCG, or baseball cards, or raffles, or sweepstakes, or public Bingo, or those sticker dispensers at grocery stores, or or or..."
You might think all of those are absolutely wrong and should be banned/regulated, and that's fine! I don't think your opinion is wrong, or that doing so would kill Magic or destroy all that is fun in the world. Probably would make the world objectively better. But as mentioned a few pages ago, a lot of people would probably rate gambling and gambling-like mechanics on a curve, and while I'm sure most, when fully informed, would put lootboxes up there with slot machines (and probably worst than most card games played at casinos,) it's doubtful you're going to go completly down the list of everything gambling-like directed at kids that could go away and still have 51 Senators, 218 representatives and a President who are going to say "yeah, I'm comfortable with the possibility of this law resulting in all that going away."
Just ban digital gambling. MtG safe, FIFA not. (Obviously the wording would need to be sorted out, but the key difference is digital / non digital.)
Why? You can kill two birds with one 1/1 stone, they use the same mechanics, the same lures, they target the same vulnerable customers, why should we try to shield one, while trying to take the other down? Please explain this to me.
Because you want to use somewhat targeted legislation to get the foot in the door and then refine it. If it's overbroad it won't get out of committee.
It deosnt get more targetted than considering the specific mechanic as gambling, the digital distinction only works if you want to, for some reason I cant fathom, exclude a specific product. Or in short, you are giving me BS
In my own case, it's not necessarily that I believe Magic and physical CCGs are different enough from lootboxes to be allowed when the other isn't. What I *am* concerned about is that ESA and video games are going to successfully use a slippery slope argument to scare off politicians from passing regulations on lootboxes. "You can't ban lootboxes without banning Magic, or Pokemon TCG, or baseball cards, or raffles, or sweepstakes, or public Bingo, or those sticker dispensers at grocery stores, or or or..."
You might think all of those are absolutely wrong and should be banned/regulated, and that's fine! I don't think your opinion is wrong, or that doing so would kill Magic or destroy all that is fun in the world. Probably would make the world objectively better. But as mentioned a few pages ago, a lot of people would probably rate gambling and gambling-like mechanics on a curve, and while I'm sure most, when fully informed, would put lootboxes up there with slot machines (and probably worst than most card games played at casinos,) it's doubtful you're going to go completly down the list of everything gambling-like directed at kids that could go away and still have 51 Senators, 218 representatives and a President who are going to say "yeah, I'm comfortable with the possibility of this law resulting in all that going away."
How do you get from "regulate random loot/random booster packs/loot boxes" to "this will destroy Magic"?
No one is arguing for the banning of Magic the Gathering or Video Games. We are arguing for restricting random booster packs and loot boxes/gacha mechanics.
Magic the Gathering, as a game, is not dependent on the random aspect of its sales strategy. Forcing WotC to actually have to disclose what cards you are buying when you buy a pack/booster, as an example, does not eliminate the other enjoyable aspects of the game.
Same goes with loot boxes. Loot Boxes do not inherently enhance the enjoyability of a video game. They are nothing more than various levels of abusive marketing practices that are designed to exploit their clientele.
I would go so far as to say that, in many cases, loot boxes DETRACT from a game's enjoyability, at least for me, as I won't have access to all the content I want unless I make an additional investment, often, in the case of AAA games, ON TOP of the initial investment I made to buy the game.
Same with Magic. I used to play in my 20s, but I don't anymore, because I can no longer justify the investment needed to stay competitive, ESPECIALLY considering that even if I buy 10 booster packs, I'm not guaranteed to get the cards I want to build the deck I desire. Yes, I may be able to resort to the secondary market, but again, just because a secondary market exists, that does not excuse the marketing practices of the primary market, which exist solely to exploit.
And then ban from this thread anyone who posts there?
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Just ban digital gambling. MtG safe, FIFA not. (Obviously the wording would need to be sorted out, but the key difference is digital / non digital.)
Why? You can kill two birds with one 1/1 stone, they use the same mechanics, the same lures, they target the same vulnerable customers, why should we try to shield one, while trying to take the other down? Please explain this to me.
Because you want to use somewhat targeted legislation to get the foot in the door and then refine it. If it's overbroad it won't get out of committee.
It deosnt get more targetted than considering the specific mechanic as gambling, the digital distinction only works if you want to, for some reason I cant fathom, exclude a specific product. Or in short, you are giving me BS
In my own case, it's not necessarily that I believe Magic and physical CCGs are different enough from lootboxes to be allowed when the other isn't. What I *am* concerned about is that ESA and video games are going to successfully use a slippery slope argument to scare off politicians from passing regulations on lootboxes. "You can't ban lootboxes without banning Magic, or Pokemon TCG, or baseball cards, or raffles, or sweepstakes, or public Bingo, or those sticker dispensers at grocery stores, or or or..."
You might think all of those are absolutely wrong and should be banned/regulated, and that's fine! I don't think your opinion is wrong, or that doing so would kill Magic or destroy all that is fun in the world. Probably would make the world objectively better. But as mentioned a few pages ago, a lot of people would probably rate gambling and gambling-like mechanics on a curve, and while I'm sure most, when fully informed, would put lootboxes up there with slot machines (and probably worst than most card games played at casinos,) it's doubtful you're going to go completly down the list of everything gambling-like directed at kids that could go away and still have 51 Senators, 218 representatives and a President who are going to say "yeah, I'm comfortable with the possibility of this law resulting in all that going away."
How do you get from "regulate random loot/random booster packs/loot boxes" to "this will destroy Magic"?
No one is arguing for the banning of Magic the Gathering or Video Games. We are arguing for restricting random booster packs and loot boxes/gacha mechanics.
Magic the Gathering, as a game, is not dependent on the random aspect of its sales strategy. Forcing WotC to actually have to disclose what cards you are buying when you buy a pack/booster, as an example, does not eliminate the other enjoyable aspects of the game.
Same goes with loot boxes. Loot Boxes do not inherently enhance the enjoyability of a video game. They are nothing more than various levels of abusive marketing practices that are designed to exploit their clientele.
I would go so far as to say that, in many cases, loot boxes DETRACT from a game's enjoyability, at least for me, as I won't have access to all the content I want unless I make an additional investment, often, in the case of AAA games, ON TOP of the initial investment I made to buy the game.
Same with Magic. I used to play in my 20s, but I don't anymore, because I can no longer justify the investment needed to stay competitive, ESPECIALLY considering that even if I buy 10 booster packs, I'm not guaranteed to get the cards I want to build the deck I desire. Yes, I may be able to resort to the secondary market, but again, just because a secondary market exists, that does not excuse the marketing practices of the primary market, which exist solely to exploit.
Again, that is not what *I* think AT ALL. It is what ESA and publishers who are using this shit to shill people for all their money are going to say will happen if they touch their lootboxes to scare off any meaningful regulation.
I do not play Magic or any other CCG, physical online or otherwise, and it would not bother me one whit if Josh Hawley's law ends up killing them off, even though I think that is just as ludicrous of a possibility as you do (and as my senator, I said as much to the message I sent to his office, and if I ever met him in person I would say the same thing to his face.)
But the last few pages have kinda shown that people would probably get touchy about anything that would risk their favorite card game, and Hasbro and the Pokemon Company certainly would with anything that would put part of their revenue stream at risk. And politicians tend to be a reticent on anything that isn't party platform that they get negative feedback at home, much less from lobbyists.
With the very important caveat that I do not believe the discussion, concerns, or regulations with things that expose gambling-like mechanics to minors should end with lootboxes I do not think it would be a waste of time to come up with a reason, however flimsy and tiny of a fig leaf it would be, that could use to justify ban or strictly regulating lootboxes while AT THIS TIME not dealing with the issue of CCGs and other instances of gambling like mechanics.
I still remember playing Magic through Apprentice on IRC. You could find people who wanted to play pure proxy, or pure owned cards, or limited proxy. It was all on the honor system.
Pure proxy was actually quite fun. Easier than in-person proxy, since all the text showed up. Turns out the loot box mechanic isn’t necessarily integral to have fun playing Magic.
It's important to note the only reason gambleboxes have yet to be applied to things like food and medical services is because they haven't thought of how to sell it yet. Our society values obtained money far higher than things like ethical behavior.
Curtailing the ability to refine and exploit behavior that every human is surprisingly susceptible to should be of a high priority. Lots of people aren't currently compelled to spend half of their income on gacha games or FIFA and I guarantee that's considered by executives to be a failing.
They use the same terminology and defense of gambleboxes that Phillip Morris and Winston Salem have used since the 1940s.
Right, from now on booster packs and drafts are 18+, and WotC has to sell individual cards.
Now how about those lootboxes?
Any reason the same reasoning can't apply to loot boxes? Wanna nickle-and-dime me EA? Fine, the law says you have to tell me exactly what it is I'm buying.
It's important to note the only reason gambleboxes have yet to be applied to things like food and medical services is because they haven't thought of how to sell it yet. Our society values obtained money far higher than things like ethical behavior.
Curtailing the ability to refine and exploit behavior that every human is surprisingly susceptible to should be of a high priority. Lots of people aren't currently compelled to spend half of their income on gacha games or FIFA and I guarantee that's considered by executives to be a failing.
They use the same terminology and defense of gambleboxes that Phillip Morris and Winston Salem have used since the 1940s.
IIRC there is actually an app that lets subscribe for daily meals you make for yourself, chosen at random.
I don't think MTG is predatory. No one is paying $800 to get a single card on a gamble (yes some Vintage cards that have been out of print for decades go for that much or more but Vintage isn't officially supported really at this point and if you want to get into it you know what to expect). Some people do buy boxes of new sets which is gambling on some level. But I think there is a difference between randomness as a way to create a sense of exploration and randomness as a way to obfuscate getting a specific payout.
Edit: Random packs are necessary for Draft and Sealed.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I don't think MTG is predatory. No one is paying $800 to get a single card on a gamble (yes some Vintage cards that have been out of print for decades go for that much or more but Vintage isn't officially supported really at this point and if you want to get into it you know what to expect). Some people do buy boxes of new sets which is gambling on some level. But I think there is a difference between randomness as a way to create a sense of exploration and randomness as a way to obfuscate getting a specific payout.
Edit: Random packs are necessary for Draft and Sealed.
It is most definitely predatory. People absolutely spend large amounts of money on cards that are made artificially scarce, either through multiple packs or through some third party, when there's no reason they couldn't all be sold for the same price by WotC to start with.
Right, from now on booster packs and drafts are 18+, and WotC has to sell individual cards.
Now how about those lootboxes?
Any reason the same reasoning can't apply to loot boxes? Wanna nickle-and-dime me EA? Fine, the law says you have to tell me exactly what it is I'm buying.
There you go.
People were complaining about MTG preying on children, this, if not solves that issue, at least works to mitigate it.
Lootboxes are worse than anything MTG is doing, so while that would work as a starting point, i think ingame lootboxes may need extra regulations.
I don't think MTG is predatory. No one is paying $800 to get a single card on a gamble (yes some Vintage cards that have been out of print for decades go for that much or more but Vintage isn't officially supported really at this point and if you want to get into it you know what to expect). Some people do buy boxes of new sets which is gambling on some level. But I think there is a difference between randomness as a way to create a sense of exploration and randomness as a way to obfuscate getting a specific payout.
Edit: Random packs are necessary for Draft and Sealed.
It is most definitely predatory. People absolutely spend large amounts of money on cards that are made artificially scarce, either through multiple packs or through some third party, when there's no reason they couldn't all be sold for the same price by WotC to start with.
I guess WotC could sell complete sets for $200 dollars a pop and you would need to pay $800 for a deck but I'm not sure that would be better.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
But I think there is a difference between randomness as a way to create a sense of exploration and randomness as a way to obfuscate getting a specific payout.
I'd love to dive more into that. How do you define "sense of exploration" and how do you differentiate it from "way to obfuscate"? I've heard this argument before applied to video games and Gacha games also.
Edit: Random packs are necessary for Draft and Sealed.
Which can easily be made to only apply in sanctioned and regulated tournament settings, just like casinos are regulated now. We're not suggesting completely eliminating randomness, just applying some reasonable regulation.
To give a more specific example: at retail, or in an online marketplace, publishers MUST disclose specifically which goods (virtual or physical) are being offered for sale prior to the customer making a purchasing decision.
If the game wishes to introduce a mode of play where random elements are applied, that mode must be segregated from the main mode of play. Marketers are free to apply an additional fee for participation (such as in a tournament or other similar event), that's fine, but the random aspect must be clearly disclosed, and participants must attest that they understand the rules. Minors under the age on consent can participate only with their legal guardian's consent. Furthermore, the random elements apply only within the scope of the event in question, and have no impact on the player's gaming experience outside of the event.
I feel this is perfectly reasonable and does nothing to devalue the inherent quality of any games to which these mechanics apply.
The whole MTG side discussion is basicly a massive distraction.
We are finally, maybe, getting some damn regulations on lootbox mechanics in computer games, so what do the game publishers do?
They try to widen the net to other targets that people might not be as accepting to be in need of regulation in order to, hopefully, stop regulations on them.
But I think there is a difference between randomness as a way to create a sense of exploration and randomness as a way to obfuscate getting a specific payout.
I'd love to dive more into that. How do you define "sense of exploration" and how do you differentiate it from "way to obfuscate"? I've heard this argument before applied to video games and Gacha games also.
I don't think you can. Not easily.
Like, I enjoy exploring in Minecraft and looking at procedurally generated content.
I don't enjoy mining in Minecraft and spending hours digging looking for rare ore, which is digging through procedurally generated content.
The only thing that prevents me calling the latter a loot box is I'm not constantly paying for the privilege of digging through dirt.
Still, it seems impossible for me to seperate that drudgery from the random content I actually like.
The only way of avoiding rng entirely and still evoking exploration is to have a very large base of unique content, such that a player cannot be familiar with it all.
I don't think MTG is predatory. No one is paying $800 to get a single card on a gamble (yes some Vintage cards that have been out of print for decades go for that much or more but Vintage isn't officially supported really at this point and if you want to get into it you know what to expect). Some people do buy boxes of new sets which is gambling on some level. But I think there is a difference between randomness as a way to create a sense of exploration and randomness as a way to obfuscate getting a specific payout.
Edit: Random packs are necessary for Draft and Sealed.
It is most definitely predatory. People absolutely spend large amounts of money on cards that are made artificially scarce, either through multiple packs or through some third party, when there's no reason they couldn't all be sold for the same price by WotC to start with.
I guess WotC could sell complete sets for $200 dollars a pop and you would need to pay $800 for a deck but I'm not sure that would be better.
For consumers that spend much more it absolutely would be.
Or WotC could just not use gambling as a business model and change how they release cards.
But I think there is a difference between randomness as a way to create a sense of exploration and randomness as a way to obfuscate getting a specific payout.
I'd love to dive more into that. How do you define "sense of exploration" and how do you differentiate it from "way to obfuscate"? I've heard this argument before applied to video games and Gacha games also.
I don't think you can. Not easily.
Like, I enjoy exploring in Minecraft and looking at procedurally generated content.
I don't enjoy mining in Minecraft and spending hours digging looking for rare ore, which is digging through procedurally generated content.
The only thing that prevents me calling the latter a loot box is I'm not constantly paying for the privilege of digging through dirt.
Still, it seems impossible for me to seperate that drudgery from the random content I actually like.
The only way of avoiding rng entirely and still evoking exploration is to have a very large base of unique content, such that a player cannot be familiar with it all.
If randomness were relegated solely to in-game mechanics that doesn't ask people to spend real-world money on it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Randomness on its own isn't the problem. Many games rely on randomness as a game mechanic. Asking people to PAY for something random is the problem. That's the difference maker.
I would have ZERO problem with Gacha games/loot boxes if the only way to play the gacha was through currency that can ONLY be earned in-game, with NO buy-in options. Then it's an even playing ground. The only gating being done is now based solely on how much time a player is willing to spend grinding in-game currency, and there is no risk of people spending more than they can afford to satisfy an elusive dopamine rush, since the option wouldn't be available to you until you take the time necessary to earn more in-game currency.
You can still include a micro-transaction marketplace if you want, but it has to be separate from the Gacha and can't be random. Heck, add limited-time items if you want, apply whatever other marketing tricks you think will help, charge whatever you think your market will bear, but NO RANDOMNESS.
But I think there is a difference between randomness as a way to create a sense of exploration and randomness as a way to obfuscate getting a specific payout.
I'd love to dive more into that. How do you define "sense of exploration" and how do you differentiate it from "way to obfuscate"? I've heard this argument before applied to video games and Gacha games also.
Edit: Random packs are necessary for Draft and Sealed.
Which can easily be made to only apply in sanctioned and regulated tournament settings, just like casinos are regulated now. We're not suggesting completely eliminating randomness, just applying some reasonable regulation.
To give a more specific example: at retail, or in an online marketplace, publishers MUST disclose specifically which goods (virtual or physical) are being offered for sale prior to the customer making a purchasing decision.
If the game wishes to introduce a mode of play where random elements are applied, that mode must be segregated from the main mode of play. Marketers are free to apply an additional fee for participation (such as in a tournament or other similar event), that's fine, but the random aspect must be clearly disclosed, and participants must attest that they understand the rules. Minors under the age on consent can participate only with their legal guardian's consent. Furthermore, the random elements apply only within the scope of the event in question, and have no impact on the player's gaming experience outside of the event.
I feel this is perfectly reasonable and does nothing to devalue the inherent quality of any games to which these mechanics apply.
But I think there is a difference between randomness as a way to create a sense of exploration and randomness as a way to obfuscate getting a specific payout.
I'd love to dive more into that. How do you define "sense of exploration" and how do you differentiate it from "way to obfuscate"? I've heard this argument before applied to video games and Gacha games also.
Edit: Random packs are necessary for Draft and Sealed.
Which can easily be made to only apply in sanctioned and regulated tournament settings, just like casinos are regulated now. We're not suggesting completely eliminating randomness, just applying some reasonable regulation.
To give a more specific example: at retail, or in an online marketplace, publishers MUST disclose specifically which goods (virtual or physical) are being offered for sale prior to the customer making a purchasing decision.
If the game wishes to introduce a mode of play where random elements are applied, that mode must be segregated from the main mode of play. Marketers are free to apply an additional fee for participation (such as in a tournament or other similar event), that's fine, but the random aspect must be clearly disclosed, and participants must attest that they understand the rules. Minors under the age on consent can participate only with their legal guardian's consent. Furthermore, the random elements apply only within the scope of the event in question, and have no impact on the player's gaming experience outside of the event.
I feel this is perfectly reasonable and does nothing to devalue the inherent quality of any games to which these mechanics apply.
But I think there is a difference between randomness as a way to create a sense of exploration and randomness as a way to obfuscate getting a specific payout.
I'd love to dive more into that. How do you define "sense of exploration" and how do you differentiate it from "way to obfuscate"? I've heard this argument before applied to video games and Gacha games also.
If you got to a prerelease I think for most people the appeal is not primarily or even largely a chance to get some mythic you think will be worth bank, it is to open a bunch of cards you haven't seen before and play with them. Even once you get to the point where you no longer need more commons from a set you can open a new rare and get an idea for a new deck using it.
With Limited you can continue to get novel experiences even with sets you know well because no two card pools will be the same.
This is different then a lot of mobile games where you buy a pull and get duplicates or unplayable commons 99% of the time while you try to chase that 1% of a character or whatever you actually want.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I think the fact that you can freely trade your magic cards with other human people and that you physically own them makes them so much of a different animal than video game lootboxes that I can't see how the two should be talked about in the same breath. They're different from gambling at a casino somewhat because you get cards, no matter what, that you own and can trade - you never "lose everything"
Edit: this isn't saying MTG packs aren't a kind of gambling, it's just saying its very different from lootboxes and the two shouldn't be talked about together, it's just muddying the waters
I think the fact that you can freely trade your magic cards with other human people and that you physically own them makes them so much of a different animal than video game lootboxes that I can't see how the two should be talked about in the same breath
How much will you give me for my Vampire: The Eternal Struggle cards?
I think the fact that you can freely trade your magic cards with other human people and that you physically own them makes them so much of a different animal than video game lootboxes that I can't see how the two should be talked about in the same breath
How much will you give me for my Vampire: The Eternal Struggle cards?
I own lots of nerd stuff that isn't worth much or any money that I paid money for
1) Lootboxes and MtG have a similar model, which is fundamentally gambling.
2) Lootboxes are worse (how much is debatable, I'll grant)
3) It is not inconsistent to apply lesser regulation to CCGs in general because of 2.
I lean towards a bigger gap in 2 than others I think, but...
I would argue that at a minimum CCGs should have fully public probabilities on everything. Not where you have to calculate anything out, but straight lists (given foil rare in set X is Y% of packs for granularity). And oversight of packaging to keep them to those rates. And... probably age verification on purchases, at least - I don't have a problem with kids playing, but a parent should have to sign off on purchases at least...
It would be interesting to see a blanket ban on randomized products. Like, Magic is a big name in the field, along with other CCGs, but I'm thinking back to other blind box items, hell, those sticker books I used to have as a kid (ye gods, I started young on this shit), Ghostbusters, Nintendo, and Transformers, along with gimmicks like holograms and glow in the dark ones, etc.
Note: this isn't a defense or to say it's a bad idea, I'm legit musing aloud the various items it would impact I've snagged over the years.
Now, if they were still a thing (are they still a thing), those were flat out marketed at young children, and I'd be 100% behind burning their business model to the ground and salting the Earth where they stood. Even as someone with fairly fond memories of saving a couple packs of stickers for a rainy day.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I think the fact that you can freely trade your magic cards with other human people and that you physically own them makes them so much of a different animal than video game lootboxes that I can't see how the two should be talked about in the same breath
How much will you give me for my Vampire: The Eternal Struggle cards?
I own lots of nerd stuff that isn't worth much or any money that I paid money for
Let me tell you about how I ended up marathon'ing a shitload of 24, found out there was a 24 CCG, snagged a booster box, opened it, and never even played a single game. Luckily it was deeply discounted, but it seems to have gotten a few expansions ages ago and then died the same ignoble death dozens of CCGs have over the years.
I still have a few of the cards, but ended up leaving a big stack of most of them sitting in the 'free to take' section of my apartment's laundry room.
I suppose this wouldn't be very different if it had been an LCG product rather than a CCG. It was still a flash in the pan interest that flamed out almost immediately, but at least it would have been a full game experience in a self contained product rather than god only knows what I had.
Lest anyone think I'm nothing but tales of rocking out the valuable shit.
Battletech's CCG, Vampire (back when it was called Jyhad), Rifts (this one was a giant steaming pile of shit), there was a period where I'd occasionally just snap up a starter pack (usually around 60'ish cards and a rule booklet) for a game that looked interesting. Even if I kind of dug it, though, it usually fell flat for not having enough friends to play against, or not having the disposable income to justify buying into multiple games at a time.
There's still plenty of them out there, but the 90's and 00's were filled with damned near everyone trying to get in on the CCG hotness. Think peak MMO era; know a property? Someone's probably trying to pitch a CCG for it.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Posts
It deosnt get more targetted than considering the specific mechanic as gambling, the digital distinction only works if you want to, for some reason I cant fathom, exclude a specific product. Or in short, you are giving me BS
We're saying the practice of applying randomness and false scarcity to these products is abusive and predatory. Magic, as a product, is fine! Mobile games, as products in general, are fine! What's not fine is applying abuse and predatory marketing practices to these otherwise fine products to artificially drive up sales, which is basically asking your customers to pay money to potentially get something of no value to them in return.
The fact that Magic cards are physical items that can be sold in a secondary market does not excuse the predatory practice. It is still possible to buy a booster pack that contains nothing but duplicates of cards you already have, and who also have no inherent value on the secondary market. If that has happened to you, WoC have ripped you off, and that is not ok.
Plenty of people have?
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Yes. It was funny in my head. I didn’t realize there were a few pages of posts after what I had been reading. I did not refresh first. I am the worst.
I guess that’s what I get for gambling on my post still being timely.
But wouldn’t the logical extension be that regulation is necessary?
I’m not really okay with identifying something as “not OK”/literally abusive and not taking it through toward some kind of regulation.
Also, I think it’s okay to identify something as problematic without having the perfect solution at our fingertips.
In my own case, it's not necessarily that I believe Magic and physical CCGs are different enough from lootboxes to be allowed when the other isn't. What I *am* concerned about is that ESA and video games are going to successfully use a slippery slope argument to scare off politicians from passing regulations on lootboxes. "You can't ban lootboxes without banning Magic, or Pokemon TCG, or baseball cards, or raffles, or sweepstakes, or public Bingo, or those sticker dispensers at grocery stores, or or or..."
You might think all of those are absolutely wrong and should be banned/regulated, and that's fine! I don't think your opinion is wrong, or that doing so would kill Magic or destroy all that is fun in the world. Probably would make the world objectively better. But as mentioned a few pages ago, a lot of people would probably rate gambling and gambling-like mechanics on a curve, and while I'm sure most, when fully informed, would put lootboxes up there with slot machines (and probably worst than most card games played at casinos,) it's doubtful you're going to go completly down the list of everything gambling-like directed at kids that could go away and still have 51 Senators, 218 representatives and a President who are going to say "yeah, I'm comfortable with the possibility of this law resulting in all that going away."
How do you get from "regulate random loot/random booster packs/loot boxes" to "this will destroy Magic"?
No one is arguing for the banning of Magic the Gathering or Video Games. We are arguing for restricting random booster packs and loot boxes/gacha mechanics.
Magic the Gathering, as a game, is not dependent on the random aspect of its sales strategy. Forcing WotC to actually have to disclose what cards you are buying when you buy a pack/booster, as an example, does not eliminate the other enjoyable aspects of the game.
Same goes with loot boxes. Loot Boxes do not inherently enhance the enjoyability of a video game. They are nothing more than various levels of abusive marketing practices that are designed to exploit their clientele.
I would go so far as to say that, in many cases, loot boxes DETRACT from a game's enjoyability, at least for me, as I won't have access to all the content I want unless I make an additional investment, often, in the case of AAA games, ON TOP of the initial investment I made to buy the game.
Same with Magic. I used to play in my 20s, but I don't anymore, because I can no longer justify the investment needed to stay competitive, ESPECIALLY considering that even if I buy 10 booster packs, I'm not guaranteed to get the cards I want to build the deck I desire. Yes, I may be able to resort to the secondary market, but again, just because a secondary market exists, that does not excuse the marketing practices of the primary market, which exist solely to exploit.
And then ban from this thread anyone who posts there?
Now how about those lootboxes?
Again, that is not what *I* think AT ALL. It is what ESA and publishers who are using this shit to shill people for all their money are going to say will happen if they touch their lootboxes to scare off any meaningful regulation.
I do not play Magic or any other CCG, physical online or otherwise, and it would not bother me one whit if Josh Hawley's law ends up killing them off, even though I think that is just as ludicrous of a possibility as you do (and as my senator, I said as much to the message I sent to his office, and if I ever met him in person I would say the same thing to his face.)
But the last few pages have kinda shown that people would probably get touchy about anything that would risk their favorite card game, and Hasbro and the Pokemon Company certainly would with anything that would put part of their revenue stream at risk. And politicians tend to be a reticent on anything that isn't party platform that they get negative feedback at home, much less from lobbyists.
With the very important caveat that I do not believe the discussion, concerns, or regulations with things that expose gambling-like mechanics to minors should end with lootboxes I do not think it would be a waste of time to come up with a reason, however flimsy and tiny of a fig leaf it would be, that could use to justify ban or strictly regulating lootboxes while AT THIS TIME not dealing with the issue of CCGs and other instances of gambling like mechanics.
Pure proxy was actually quite fun. Easier than in-person proxy, since all the text showed up. Turns out the loot box mechanic isn’t necessarily integral to have fun playing Magic.
Curtailing the ability to refine and exploit behavior that every human is surprisingly susceptible to should be of a high priority. Lots of people aren't currently compelled to spend half of their income on gacha games or FIFA and I guarantee that's considered by executives to be a failing.
They use the same terminology and defense of gambleboxes that Phillip Morris and Winston Salem have used since the 1940s.
Any reason the same reasoning can't apply to loot boxes? Wanna nickle-and-dime me EA? Fine, the law says you have to tell me exactly what it is I'm buying.
There you go.
IIRC there is actually an app that lets subscribe for daily meals you make for yourself, chosen at random.
Edit: Random packs are necessary for Draft and Sealed.
It is most definitely predatory. People absolutely spend large amounts of money on cards that are made artificially scarce, either through multiple packs or through some third party, when there's no reason they couldn't all be sold for the same price by WotC to start with.
Lootboxes are worse than anything MTG is doing, so while that would work as a starting point, i think ingame lootboxes may need extra regulations.
I guess WotC could sell complete sets for $200 dollars a pop and you would need to pay $800 for a deck but I'm not sure that would be better.
I'd love to dive more into that. How do you define "sense of exploration" and how do you differentiate it from "way to obfuscate"? I've heard this argument before applied to video games and Gacha games also.
Which can easily be made to only apply in sanctioned and regulated tournament settings, just like casinos are regulated now. We're not suggesting completely eliminating randomness, just applying some reasonable regulation.
To give a more specific example: at retail, or in an online marketplace, publishers MUST disclose specifically which goods (virtual or physical) are being offered for sale prior to the customer making a purchasing decision.
If the game wishes to introduce a mode of play where random elements are applied, that mode must be segregated from the main mode of play. Marketers are free to apply an additional fee for participation (such as in a tournament or other similar event), that's fine, but the random aspect must be clearly disclosed, and participants must attest that they understand the rules. Minors under the age on consent can participate only with their legal guardian's consent. Furthermore, the random elements apply only within the scope of the event in question, and have no impact on the player's gaming experience outside of the event.
I feel this is perfectly reasonable and does nothing to devalue the inherent quality of any games to which these mechanics apply.
I feel this a ludicrous over-regulation of FNM drafts.
We are finally, maybe, getting some damn regulations on lootbox mechanics in computer games, so what do the game publishers do?
They try to widen the net to other targets that people might not be as accepting to be in need of regulation in order to, hopefully, stop regulations on them.
I don't think you can. Not easily.
Like, I enjoy exploring in Minecraft and looking at procedurally generated content.
I don't enjoy mining in Minecraft and spending hours digging looking for rare ore, which is digging through procedurally generated content.
The only thing that prevents me calling the latter a loot box is I'm not constantly paying for the privilege of digging through dirt.
Still, it seems impossible for me to seperate that drudgery from the random content I actually like.
The only way of avoiding rng entirely and still evoking exploration is to have a very large base of unique content, such that a player cannot be familiar with it all.
For consumers that spend much more it absolutely would be.
Or WotC could just not use gambling as a business model and change how they release cards.
If randomness were relegated solely to in-game mechanics that doesn't ask people to spend real-world money on it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Randomness on its own isn't the problem. Many games rely on randomness as a game mechanic. Asking people to PAY for something random is the problem. That's the difference maker.
I would have ZERO problem with Gacha games/loot boxes if the only way to play the gacha was through currency that can ONLY be earned in-game, with NO buy-in options. Then it's an even playing ground. The only gating being done is now based solely on how much time a player is willing to spend grinding in-game currency, and there is no risk of people spending more than they can afford to satisfy an elusive dopamine rush, since the option wouldn't be available to you until you take the time necessary to earn more in-game currency.
You can still include a micro-transaction marketplace if you want, but it has to be separate from the Gacha and can't be random. Heck, add limited-time items if you want, apply whatever other marketing tricks you think will help, charge whatever you think your market will bear, but NO RANDOMNESS.
Then WTF is this?
https://www.fanatical.com/en/bundle/the-magnificent-mystery-machine
(You can pay $7 for 10 random games. No, it's not worth it. Yes, I've contacted the FTC already.)
Stuff like this is one reason I really dislike lootboxes: not just for what they are, but what they could lead to.
It's complete bullshit, is what it is.
Your opinions on this thread or its other posters are not on topic.
If you got to a prerelease I think for most people the appeal is not primarily or even largely a chance to get some mythic you think will be worth bank, it is to open a bunch of cards you haven't seen before and play with them. Even once you get to the point where you no longer need more commons from a set you can open a new rare and get an idea for a new deck using it.
With Limited you can continue to get novel experiences even with sets you know well because no two card pools will be the same.
This is different then a lot of mobile games where you buy a pull and get duplicates or unplayable commons 99% of the time while you try to chase that 1% of a character or whatever you actually want.
Edit: this isn't saying MTG packs aren't a kind of gambling, it's just saying its very different from lootboxes and the two shouldn't be talked about together, it's just muddying the waters
How much will you give me for my Vampire: The Eternal Struggle cards?
I own lots of nerd stuff that isn't worth much or any money that I paid money for
1) Lootboxes and MtG have a similar model, which is fundamentally gambling.
2) Lootboxes are worse (how much is debatable, I'll grant)
3) It is not inconsistent to apply lesser regulation to CCGs in general because of 2.
I lean towards a bigger gap in 2 than others I think, but...
I would argue that at a minimum CCGs should have fully public probabilities on everything. Not where you have to calculate anything out, but straight lists (given foil rare in set X is Y% of packs for granularity). And oversight of packaging to keep them to those rates. And... probably age verification on purchases, at least - I don't have a problem with kids playing, but a parent should have to sign off on purchases at least...
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Note: this isn't a defense or to say it's a bad idea, I'm legit musing aloud the various items it would impact I've snagged over the years.
Now, if they were still a thing (are they still a thing), those were flat out marketed at young children, and I'd be 100% behind burning their business model to the ground and salting the Earth where they stood. Even as someone with fairly fond memories of saving a couple packs of stickers for a rainy day.
Let me tell you about how I ended up marathon'ing a shitload of 24, found out there was a 24 CCG, snagged a booster box, opened it, and never even played a single game. Luckily it was deeply discounted, but it seems to have gotten a few expansions ages ago and then died the same ignoble death dozens of CCGs have over the years.
I still have a few of the cards, but ended up leaving a big stack of most of them sitting in the 'free to take' section of my apartment's laundry room.
I suppose this wouldn't be very different if it had been an LCG product rather than a CCG. It was still a flash in the pan interest that flamed out almost immediately, but at least it would have been a full game experience in a self contained product rather than god only knows what I had.
Lest anyone think I'm nothing but tales of rocking out the valuable shit.
Battletech's CCG, Vampire (back when it was called Jyhad), Rifts (this one was a giant steaming pile of shit), there was a period where I'd occasionally just snap up a starter pack (usually around 60'ish cards and a rule booklet) for a game that looked interesting. Even if I kind of dug it, though, it usually fell flat for not having enough friends to play against, or not having the disposable income to justify buying into multiple games at a time.
There's still plenty of them out there, but the 90's and 00's were filled with damned near everyone trying to get in on the CCG hotness. Think peak MMO era; know a property? Someone's probably trying to pitch a CCG for it.