Are lootboxes gambling & should games be regulated. BF2 and OW under investigation

[GennGreymane]

Yes. I'm sure. Genn you seem to be ignoring half my posts or something. You called me on it, I admitted it..

Oh so you will jusst start manipulating my quotes now while I actually directly quote you, un edited, in the correct context and order.... I guess your argument really is that bad. I mean I am not surprised.... but come on now.

[Orange Joe]

Parents are not trained for things like this and they dont follow up tehnology like kids.
Sure they can prevent you a internet at home and take your cell phone, but you can still go into internet cafe and buy lootboxes there.

My parents for example never player video games. I showed them links to this battlefront thing and they are still confuzed. Imagane i was addicted to it.
And worst thing is that there is not a single news abauth this in my country news...not a single little thing.
How would they know that if they are not informed till its to late.

So stop blaming parents for this, since they have their interest into other things. There needs to be a law for this (at least in EU) and not a country by a country, since its gona be in-effective.

Parents are now no longer responsible for teaching their kids? They now get to claim ignorance and hand wave it off to the game developers?


No parents are absolutely to blame if they are not asking their kids what they are doing.

- - - Updated - - -

Its a what if scenario..... what is wrong with ya man?

So nothing can ever be compared because it's a what if scenario?

Sure?
/10chars

Yes. I'm sure. Genn you seem to be ignoring half my posts or something. You called me on it, I admitted it..

Oh so you will jusst start manipulating my quotes now while I actually directly quote you, un edited, in the correct context and order.... I guess your argument really is that bad. I mean I am not surprised.... but come on now.

???? The above is the exact order of posts? I'm not changing anything? ???????

[Deleted]

The difference is you are Gambling on the specific Horse. With Lootboxes you aren't gambling on a specific item, you are taking the chance to get 1 of 50 items within a Box.

Comparing the 2 is idiotic and you should feel bad.

Yea and in poker you are betting on specific card.. oh no wait you only bet on a good outcome. To think this was a bad comparison you would have to loose the sight that its comparing gambling overall to loot boxes which is getting a randomized or semi randomised result and hoping for a good outcome for a certain amount of money. And thats exactly what they are. Getting a worthless "something" does not negate the fact its gambling. Not understanding that is monumentally idiotic and you should feel bad.

[GennGreymane]

Parents are now no longer responsible for teaching their kids? They now get to claim ignorance and hand wave it off to the game developers?


No parents are absolutely to blame if they are not asking their kids what they are doing.

- - - Updated - - -












???? The above is the exact order of posts? I'm not changing anything? ???????

And here we go, my reference was into the post I was quoting. Why are you trying so hard to manipulate the conversation when things dont go your way?

[Orange Joe]

Oh so you will jusst start manipulating my quotes now while I actually directly quote you, un edited, in the correct context and order.... I guess your argument really is that bad. I mean I am not surprised.... but come on now.

You seem to think I'm trying to be hostile with you. I'm not. If anything got heated I'm sorry I didn't mean for it to get that way.

[GennGreymane]

You seem to think I'm trying to be hostile with you. I'm not. If anything got heated I'm sorry I didn't mean for it to get that way.

I dont think you are hostile at all, just ill informed.

[Danuru]

They don't need to. They and Valve are largely immune to these kinds of controversies. Look at how well Valve weathered the CS:GO gambling controversy for example, it was brief and the outrage was nowhere near what it was for this recent round.

And look at Overwatch, the game was getting breathless articles of media excitedly opening dozens of boxes for a while and editorial after editorial praising the exact same kind of behavior (RNG lockboxes, even if they were purely cosmetic) that media cried about in other games.

The fandom behind Blizzard, and Valve as well, is strong enough that neither needs to fret much. Everyone is pissed at EA primarily, and WB/Ubisoft to a lesser extend and even a bit of Activision. Blizzard is going to continue to be fine.

They may not need to. But I'm trying to look from a business perspective. Some people are inevitably going to look at OW loot boxes retroactively since the BF2 debacle. I, in fact, am among them. Before, I was fine with loot boxes because they were purely cosmetic, and I wouldn't be buying them anyways, so why care? But with EA doing what they did, it sheds a whole new light, and I have "converted" to being against all loot boxes, even purely cosmetic, because the temptation is too great for companies like EA, apparantly.

While it may not be necessary for them to change, why wouldn't you if you deem it to be more profitable in the long run? Besides, with the government getting uncomfortably close, the gaming industry may want to self regulate before the government does it for them, which would definitely hurt profits. A similar scenario is how we ended up with ESRB ratings in the first place, the gaming industry decided to adopt the rating system before it was forced upon them.

[Orange Joe]

And here we go, my reference was into the post I was quoting. Why are you trying so hard to manipulate the conversation when things dont go your way?

wtf? I'm not??? What???

dude. Calm down you are reading shit that is not here.

Its a what if scenario..... what is wrong with ya man?

^ you call me out on it being a what if question.

So nothing can ever be compared because it's a what if scenario?

I concede and ask above.

Sure?
/10chars

You asking me if I'm sure I was admitting it was a what if question by quoting the same post as the first time you call me out.

Yes. I'm sure. Genn you seem to be ignoring half my posts or something. You called me on it, I admitted it..

I quote the post where I was conceding it was a what if question.

Oh so you will jusst start manipulating my quotes now while I actually directly quote you, un edited, in the correct context and order.... I guess your argument really is that bad. I mean I am not surprised.... but come on now.

I didn't edit nothing nor am I trying to maniplutate anything.

[GennGreymane]

I thought I was admitting is was a what if by asking that question?

There was no what if question. It was a simple question. And burden of proof is still on you....

Sure?
/10chars

Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
So nothing can ever be compared because it's a what if scenario?

Quote Originally Posted by GennGreymane View Post
Sure?

/10chars


Yes. I'm sure. Genn you seem to be ignoring half my posts or something. You called me on it, I admitted it..

Something feels off with these posts.... tell me, did you quote me in an out of context manner?

[Orange Joe]

Something feels off with these posts.... tell me, did you quote me in an out of context manner?

I quoted the post of you asking me if I was sure. I went back and multi quoted my post conceding it was a what if and said yes I was sure...


The order they are in was due to whatever code is at work behind the scene. I didn't put them in any order nor did I mean them to be in any order except to reply to you.

[GennGreymane]

I quoted the post of you asking me if I was sure. I went back and multi quoted my post conceding it was a what if and said yes I was sure...


The order they are in was due to whatever code is at work behind the scene. I didn't put them in any order nor did I mean them to be in any orcer excpet to reply to you.

Okay then.
/10

[Uselessrouge]

its gambling no mather how you turn it...

i spend enough on gambling myself but i know its gambling and i think its kinda shitty to let kids 12+ gamble , oh yeah steam cards you can get them on the fuel station over here or at any electronic market...


so yes kids that are 12 can gamble without the parents that can check it.



evryone how is going to say its not gambling , is blind or a lawer for EA or some other loot selling company who is just trying to use that "grey law" to abuse the shit out of it to get kids gambling .


let your 12 years old go in a casino its the same fucking thing.. just give them a lolipop evrytime they lose 5$ so its not considered gambling i guess lul

[Super Kami Dende]

Yea and in poker you are betting on specific card..

If you lose in Poker, you lose money and gain nothing. Lootboxes always reward something.

[GennGreymane]

If you lose in Poker, you lose money and gain nothing. Lootboxes always reward something.

Casinos now reward a piece of candy once you leave. No longer gambling.

[cparle87]

Paying £50 for a game was the norm at one point, now we are paying over £100, or to some who are paying for loot boxes, £1000's. Its a rip off.

At the end of the day that's how money works. You give someone else money in exchange for something you want. If the person is happy with what they get with their money, who are you or I to call it a ripoff or to accuse the company of impropriety?

[Kithelle]

I'm curious as to why Overwatch is part of it while something like Hearthstone isn't. Does being a TCG vs FPS make the difference?

*Note: Not bashing Hearthstone or any TCG, because I know that's how you get cards. (I play MTG)

I don't get why OW is...it's all cosmetic...while things like HS and even SWBF 2 is more pay to win

[Greevir]

I don't get why OW is...it's all cosmetic...while things like HS and even SWBF 2 is more pay to win

I don't have a problem with the contents of the lootboxes. It's the lootboxes themselves I disapprove of. Make the items directly purchasable.

[Yunru]

It seems like companys want to cash in before laws are in place:

[Elim Garak]

If a kid buys $13k worth of candy, eats it all and dies. Whose fault is this?
Is it the store that sold the candy?
Is it the candy factory that produced them?
Is it the delivery company that delivered them to the store from the factory?
Is it the parents?
Is it the candy?
Is it the kid?
Is it the money?
Is it the credit card?
Is it the bank who issued the credit card?
Is it the candy industry as a whole for being greedy candy-dealers, who created these addictive tasty sugary delights that have a similar effect as heroin?
Is it the government for not regulating the candy industry enough?
Is it the absence of labels on each candy stating "Warning! Eating candy without moderation will kill you!"?

Hint is in the bold.

[Edge-]

If a kid buys $13k worth of candy, eats it all and dies. Whose fault is this?
Is it the store that sold the candy?
Is it the candy factory that produced them?
Is it the delivery company that delivered them to the store from the factory?
Is it the parents?
Is it the candy?
Is it the kid?
Is it the money?
Is it the credit card?
Is it the bank who issued the credit card?
Is it the candy industry as a whole for being greedy candy-dealers, who created these addictive tasty sugary delights that have a similar effect as heroin?
Is it the government for not regulating the candy industry enough?
Is it the absence of labels on each candy stating "Warning! Eating candy without moderation will kill you!"?

Hint is in the bold.

It depends what he died of, where he got the candy, when he ate it, and a whole lot more.

You're oversimplifying. There's a reason, for example, bars are held liable if they continue to serve to obviously drunk patrons who then go out and crash their cars into pedestrians. Sure, the driver is ultimately at fault for driving drunk, but the bar also has a legal responsibility not to get people who are driving home blackout drunk. The same goes for things like company/family parties, you leave a family party where you drank and get in a wreck and the host can be held liable.