Sen. Hawley proposes outlawing "pay to win"

[Yunru]

Since this is happening in Us.. a bill like this has a very small chance to pass. There is also a possibility that ESRB will send this senator a donation to shut up.

Unless people starting to support him and start talking all over social media and stuff to get more interest from other politicians.

Also:

[Has lost its way]

Would be nice if we could but I am not really hopeful about it.

[Breccia]

This is happening because the ESRB utterly failed to police loot boxes. .

Was that part of their job?

[roboscorcher]

What are your thoughts? Should the "pay to win" process in games be banned by law?

Micro-transactions as a whole are fine. They should not be banned, but perhaps have stronger regulations for refunding money.

Paid lootboxes? Hell yeah, ban or heavily regulate them. They absolutely are a form of gambling, and attaching real money to them causes very similar problems that gamblers face. I think paid gambling should be banned, but if lootboxes are to persist, they should always be a "randomized" alternative to the direct-purchase route. In other words, the game should offer a direct purchase AND a randomized purchase, and NOT have the random option be better.

[Ashnazg]

Imagine playing a $1 machine that always at least paid out 5 cents even if you hit nothing. That's functionally what this is, and it's a poor argument against behavior that is identical to traditional gambling.

Would it be a different calculus if the machine always paid out at least what you put in it? E.g. path of exile loot box gambling - they guarantee the value of items in each box to be at least worth the price of the box itself.

People still gamble compulsively on those boxes because they are chasing the rng element, but is it still abusive?

[Endus]

Some questions for the "it's gambling, ban it all" crowd;

Do you take the same stance towards trading card games like Pokemon, clearly marketed at kids (and I'm picking that example over MtG for that reason)? It's the same idea as loot boxes; you get random cards for a set price. Maybe they're awesome, maybe they're garbage you already have 12 of.

Do you take the same stance towards carnival games, where you can win prizes but often win squat? Yeah, sure, "game of skill" my ass, you know those things are mostly random chance (when they aren't directly rigged).

How about arcades that pay out tickets you can turn in for prizes? Or is that "game of skill" enough to qualify? Would loot boxes be acceptable to you if you paid your money and had to perform well at a minigame to get the items inside? Because that's what these arcades are essentially like.


I get that it can encourage compulsive behaviour, but so do all the above. This is where parenting comes in. I had an allowance, as a kid. I could (and often did) blow that allowance on Magic: The Gathering cards. I often dropped my full allowance and got jack shit that was worth anything or any use to my deck. The thing was, I could only blow my allowance. I didn't have anything more. I didn't have access to mom and dad's credit card, and neither should kids today. Parents need to know what their kids are doing and what they're spending money on, and control their access to funds. If you've only got $20 to spend, you make choices. Blowing it on lootboxes means you can't spend it on anything else. Why should it matter to you how kids blow their allowance, as long as they're happy with it?


Edit: Don't take the above as support for pay-to-win mechanics. I think that's terrible game design. I also don't think we need legal action to prevent it. Just stop buying into that shit.

[josykay]

Some questions for the "it's gambling, ban it all" crowd;

Do you take the same stance towards trading card games like Pokemon, clearly marketed at kids (and I'm picking that example over MtG for that reason)? It's the same idea as loot boxes; you get random cards for a set price. Maybe they're awesome, maybe they're garbage you already have 12 of.

Do you take the same stance towards carnival games, where you can win prizes but often win squat? Yeah, sure, "game of skill" my ass, you know those things are mostly random chance (when they aren't directly rigged).

How about arcades that pay out tickets you can turn in for prizes? Or is that "game of skill" enough to qualify? Would loot boxes be acceptable to you if you paid your money and had to perform well at a minigame to get the items inside? Because that's what these arcades are essentially like.


I get that it can encourage compulsive behaviour, but so do all the above. This is where parenting comes in. I had an allowance, as a kid. I could (and often did) blow that allowance on Magic: The Gathering cards. I often dropped my full allowance and got jack shit that was worth anything or any use to my deck. The thing was, I could only blow my allowance. I didn't have anything more. I didn't have access to mom and dad's credit card, and neither should kids today. Parents need to know what their kids are doing and what they're spending money on, and control their access to funds. If you've only got $20 to spend, you make choices. Blowing it on lootboxes means you can't spend it on anything else. Why should it matter to you how kids blow their allowance, as long as they're happy with it?


Edit: Don't take the above as support for pay-to-win mechanics. I think that's terrible game design. I also don't think we need legal action to prevent it. Just stop buying into that shit.

In my opinion trading cards are far worse. Because unlike skins in Lol, OW, or even hearthstone cards, they have direct monetizable value, which went so far MTG producing so called Master pieces, with the Zendikar Expeditions having the worst offenders, going for 150 Dollar each. Those things were even inofficially called lottery cards.
It is a clear game of chance, with monetizable value, varying greatly, purely based on luck. And it appeals to the same psychological aspects as gambling.

[Endus]

In my opinion trading cards are far worse. Because unlike skins in Lol, OW, or even hearthstone cards, they have direct monetizable value, which went so far MTG producing so called Master pieces, with the Zendikar Expeditions having the worst offenders, going for 150 Dollar each. Those things were even inofficially called lottery cards.
It is a clear game of chance, with monetizable value, varying greatly, purely based on luck. And it appeals to the same psychological aspects as gambling.

Right, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency. Nobody has a problem with "gambling" for kids in a whole wide range of settings. And I don't see how lootboxes deviate from those.

Frankly, I think this whole thing boils down to adults who don't like lootbox mechanics, who are pulling a "think of the children" pearl-clutch to try and force the industry away from it. It's right up there with the Satanic Panic against D&D in the '80s, IMO.

[lagiacrux]

"Pay to win" decades ago.

thats "pay to play" not "pay to win".

[Lothar from accounting]

I agree with the intent, but am confused that its proposed by a republican. There must be a catch.

Like with most "not terrible" proposals from Republicans aimed at helping others it's pretty likely either Hawley or a family member/close family friend has a kid that went overboard with lootboxes so now he wants to do something about it.

It's that whole "I don't care enough to do anything about it until it directly affects me or someone I know" thing.

[Ooid]

Pay to win is so nebulous. Sure there are clear cut cases like he mentioned where the game puts up a wall that more or less requires you to spend money. But is paying money to get 15% more xp or currencies pay to win? Is the wow token pay to win? There always egregious examples out there where it’s just flat out “pay money or you get stomped” but we need to acknowledge the gray areas.

Loot boxes are a blight and need to go away.

[tankbug]

thats "pay to play" not "pay to win".

No, Donkey Kong, giving you x amount of lives was pay to play.
"Insert coin to continue" was an "unlimited lives cheat" you could buy.

[Vankrys]

Can we ban "pay to win" in politics instead?

not gonna lie, by the title of thread, i thought the bill would have been to remove money from politics.

[Aurrora]

Was that part of their job?

They rate games so the government didn't have to step in and create their own ratings system. The criteria they use to rate them is entirely self-imposed, they allowed games with gambling components to be peddled to minors.

[Breccia]

They rate games so the government didn't have to step in and create their own ratings system. The criteria they use to rate them is entirely self-imposed, they allowed games with gambling components to be peddled to minors.

That's a valid way of describing it, okay. Thanks.

[derpkitteh]

this bill needs to go further.

but it's a good start.

the only downside is that this will likely kill swtor if it passes. swtor is most definitely a children's game, and it exists solely due to whales. though i guess if that's what's required for it to continue existing, it's better off dead.

[kail]

Right, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency. Nobody has a problem with "gambling" for kids in a whole wide range of settings. And I don't see how lootboxes deviate from those.

Frankly, I think this whole thing boils down to adults who don't like lootbox mechanics, who are pulling a "think of the children" pearl-clutch to try and force the industry away from it. It's right up there with the Satanic Panic against D&D in the '80s, IMO.

Pretty much. If loot boxes are considered gambling despite not awarding actual money, it opens a whole new precedent on previous products as well.

I get the feeling against p2w and loot boxes, it annoys me as well. But it doesn't make logical sense to call them gambling. To those that believe otherwise: What constitutes gambling?

[Felya]

This is not something government should legislate. Caffeine is one of the most addictive substances there is. Stop being hypocrites and just banning shit you don’t like. Are you guys going to ban PewdiePie playing games that have loot boxes?

- - - Updated - - -

I get the feeling against p2w and loot boxes, it annoys me as well. But it doesn't make logical sense to call them gambling. To those that believe otherwise: What constitutes gambling?

Does me buying a Super Soaker, while my poor ass friends carry around water balloons, make water fights pay to win? How about cowboys and Indians, if I buy a pony? Fuck... I think just life is P2W... can government do something about that? I think real life > gaming, is still an established fact.

Ooh... It’s funny how that works in sports... that Ivan training at the best gyms in US, while poor Rocky had to train in the snow. Ivan tried to P2W, with steroids as well, but it was no match for the broke ass hard core player!

[Chinese Bootlickers]

Why pay to win when you can shill to big corp for free?

I agree with the intent, but am confused that its proposed by a republican. There must be a catch.

Rewind to late 2017

[Moralgy]

P2w is just capitalism getting into video games. If you don't like it, dont play those games, and dont give the companies that resort to it the time of day.