Parliamentary enquiry says loot boxes are gambling - govt must act.

[dubious_doomhammer]

But you are paying for exactly what you are going to get? In case of Overwatch, its either skin, emote, spray or gold. It's guaranteed you will get one of those and it doesn't impact game-play. How is that gambling? If you cannot control yourself with this, you have issues.

I want "X" skin, "X" skin is a legendary or orange item. I cannot buy "X" skin from the store. I have to buy loot boxes that are random. I could get "X" skin paying $5 or I could get "X" skin paying $150. The definition of gambling: "take risky action in the hope of a desired result.", "to bet on an uncertain outcome".

I hope they burn micro transactions and loot boxes to the ground, and to a lesser extent, paid DLC's.

[Nefarious Tea]

Lol, so it's gambling because it has a random chance? That is a sole reason??? Should we ban life then? You play chances everyday.

Your intentional attempt at moving the goal posts is neither amusing nor helpful. You know damn well the difference is that money is paid specifically for the random rewards. That's literally the definition of gambling.

[derpkitteh]

it's nice to think that we'll soon have a president in the US that grew up playing video games, and so actually cares about them.

i only wish i'd have stayed in school and aimed for that goal. i'd tell them straight up that they can only sell the base game, and any dlc or expansions must offer at least a new area to play in, and must bring in new weapons and armor, and spells or abilities if applicable. no form of microtransaction would be legal beyond that.

[Endus]

Your intentional attempt at moving the goal posts is neither amusing nor helpful. You know damn well the difference is that money is paid specifically for the random rewards. That's literally the definition of gambling.

And?

The same definition means that buying Magic: The Gathering card packs is "gambling". Nobody ever raised the issue when kids were buying those. Why is it suddenly a big deal when it comes to video games?

[dubious_doomhammer]

You can also play the game more and get coins and buy the skin. Why are you acting dumb?

You know very well that the amount of in game currency you get from pretty much any game that has loot boxes is limited to incentivize loot box purchases. Not everyone wants to, or has the time to grind endlessly. Why are you in favor of a shitty practice that's ruining video games?

[Endus]

You know very well that the amount of in game currency you get from pretty much any game that has loot boxes is limited to incentivize loot box purchases. Not everyone wants to, or has the time to grind endlessly. Why are you in favor of a shitty practice that's ruining video games?

Is your argument against this revenue model that it's . . . intended to garner revenue through sales of said product?

Yes, the company selling a thing wants to incentivize customers to buy the thing. That's how business works.

[Jtbrig7390]

Why is it suddenly a big deal when it comes to video games?

This can't be a serious question.

Think for just 2 moments and I'm sure you can figure out the difference between a TCG and a Video Game and why its a issue now.

Also yes TCG's are also gambling and I'm all for those getting a age gate as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Is your argument against this revenue model that it's . . . intended to garner revenue through sales of said product?

Yes, the company selling a thing wants to incentivize customers to buy the thing. That's how business works.

So your ok with them wanting to take advantage of kids and people with gambling problems...

Just look at the recent NBA 2k20 trailer, shit like that is the problem and shows the company's are just going to keep pushing until there is backlash.

Not all that surprised your defending it.

[Endus]

This can't be a serious question.

Think for just 2 moments and I'm sure you can figure out the difference between a TCG and a Video Game and why its a issue now.

Also yes TCG's are also gambling and I'm all for those getting a age gate as well.

Drawing a blank. Spell it out. I don't see a functional difference, and I don't see an argument against this kind of thing, other than a straight-up moral panic, which just deserves a hearty "nah" in response.

So your ok with them wanting to take advantage of kids and people with gambling problems...

"Taking advantage" meaning what?

Because selling people products they want to buy from you isn't "taking advantage" in any negative sense.

Just look at the recent NBA 2k20 trailer, shit like that is the problem and shows the company's are just going to keep pushing until there is backlash.

Not all that surprised your defending it.

As I said in my first post, I can draw a firm line between "what should be legally permissible" and "what is good game design". I welcome the market turning against exploitative game design, by virtue of people saying "fuck that" and not buying the game or their microtransactions. I don't see any reason for special legislation over and above other business models.

[qwerty123456]

Drawing a blank. Spell it out. I don't see a functional difference, and I don't see an argument against this kind of thing, other than a straight-up moral panic, which just deserves a hearty "nah" in response.

You don't see a difference in a limitless virtual product you lose when a game shuts down and is typically priced much higher than a physical booster pack who you get to keep?


Do you not see a difference in weed and meth as well?

[Vash The Stampede]

Regulation is bad argument is something only a child would say or somebody is so young they never worked in their entire life or someone that regulation stop from their unethical profit. Regulation is why we dont have smog all over the place anymore. Regulation is why building catch fire less often. Regulation is why less people die in working accident. If theres no regulation on things, people with no ethic can make maximum profit, cut every corner imaginable. Good call. Look at fifa, its the example of cutting corner in every other industry, its a game that became so barebone it probably doesent even cost more then 10 million to "make" every year, but rakes in nearly a billion in cash. Even Disney cant put up such low effort for profit.

Exactly, regulation is only bad for companies who want to profit from an unfair practice or punish people for their profits. March 25th 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory catches fire 145 die, all but 13 girls. Why? Because factories lock doors to keep employee's from stealing fabric and running out of the building. Seems like a no brainier not to lock doors so people could escape a building in the event of a fire, but back then this was regulation and looked down upon from businesses.

Regulation is never a bad thing when bad things are happening to people.

Sure, loot boxes are "gambling". So are TCG packs, not to mention other trading cards. So are a lot of carnival games. So are those vending machines that sell toys in bubble packs. You know you're getting "something", but you can't pick what you want, directly. And to date, these things haven't been flagged as some kind of risk factor to kids.

That doesn't make these practices OK either. They've been flying under the radar for too long and should stop this practice. This includes TCG packs, trading cards, carnival games, vending machines that sell those stupid toys. All of them should show you what you're buying not keep it a secret. Imagine buying a vacuum and being told that it maybe a red one or a white one.

This whole stuff about "OMG it's GAMBLING" just seems right in line with the Satanic Panic of the '80s, targeting Dungeons and Dragons, to me. Same kind of pearl-clutching over fundamentally nothing.

You're comparing a profiteering business practice to people calling D&D something Satanic? One is not like the other. Not ever close.

You can also play the game more and get coins and buy the skin. Why are you acting dumb?

I have a better solution. You don't buy the game or play it if it's F2P. This 2013 video pretty much predicts how games have turned out, when you have Fortnite players who harass players who have the default skin..

[Endus]

You don't see a difference in a limitless virtual product you lose when a game shuts down and is typically priced much higher than a physical booster pack who you get to keep?

Do you not see a difference in weed and meth as well?

It's a real product, it's just digital. It's as "real" as an e-book or an mp3.
The product is part of a service, so sure, you "lose" it when the service ends. The same applies to anything; if you buy a lifetime membership at a gym and then the gym shuts down, your lifetime membership is "lost", too.
Price is a factor of value to the consumer. If it's not worth the price, just don't buy it. That people do buy these things says that the price is fine. This is how markets work.

That doesn't make these practices OK either. They've been flying under the radar for too long and should stop this practice. This includes TCG packs, trading cards, carnival games, vending machines that sell those stupid toys. All of them should show you what you're buying not keep it a secret. Imagine buying a vacuum and being told that it maybe a red one or a white one.

You haven't explained why these practices aren't fine. Just why you, personally, don't enjoy them. Nothing's making you buy into these things. Literally nothing. Just go enjoy what you enjoy.

You're comparing a profiteering business practice to people calling D&D something Satanic? One is not like the other. Not ever close.

D&D was and is literally a "profiteering business practice". Businesses exist to make profits.

What I'm comparing is the moral panic aspect, since that's what this push against lootboxes boils down to; a moral panic. It's "gambling", and using that word is meant to instill some kind of kneejerk reaction. And my response to that is "Yes, and?" I don't see that as an issue. It's a form of "gambling" that we've never had any problem with kids engaging in before. It's a form that causes no discernable harm. What's the problem?

Again, I can understand why you, personally, might not like these business models. I'm pointing out that this means you should make a decision, for yourself, to not buy these products. That's fine. Nobody's forcing you to partake. A lot of people do enjoy them. Companies are, yes, trying to make more money. But that's literally a company's purpose. Lootbox mechanics are broadly popular. Because buy the lootboxes. Companies make a bunch more money. So it's a useful revenue system, and one people mostly enjoy. So what's the issue?

[rogoth]

And?

The same definition means that buying Magic: The Gathering card packs is "gambling". Nobody ever raised the issue when kids were buying those. Why is it suddenly a big deal when it comes to video games?

2 major things wrong with your statement, first off it's not a 'sudden' issue, it's been an issue for a very VERY long time, now i don't know where you live and i don't care to know but where i live and when i was a kid i remember there was a big fuss made of kids being able to buy football stickers/pokemon cards because of this exact issue, the only saving grace for these things was that the packs were in relative terms very cheap to buy and you were guaranteed to get at least 1 'good' quality item in them (shiny/holo sticker/card) and you could easily trade them around as they were physical items you could touch and see.

second, and the biggest issue with your statement is that out of context it seems like you are wilfully ignorant of the fact that MTG packs (as per your example) were given an age guidance of 13+ for the reason that it was expected that kids younger than that would have trouble understanding the rules of the game nad as such shouldn't be purchasing the cards to begin with, whereas with the likes of these pegi 3/ESRB -E for everyone bullshit it's taking games that any child with the necessary motor skills to play and monetising them with egregious and predatory mechanics to get kids and vulnerable people engaged with these mechanics in order to milk them for every penny they have, and when a game that is rated for anybody (3+ etc) it SHOULD NOT be mandatory to come with a parental warning to enable parental controls and to be aware of in game purchasing, because that situation should never exist in the first place and yet here we are in 2019 where this is the norm.

this overarching issue is now at breaking point as the games industry has gotten so greedy and so predatory that they either need government intervention as a wake up call to get their act together or they need to show people that they can actually self regulate properly and not what we have now with farcical statements trying to shirk any responsibility for this problem and hide behind loopholes/technicalities.

[derpkitteh]

Drawing a blank. Spell it out. I don't see a functional difference, and I don't see an argument against this kind of thing, other than a straight-up moral panic, which just deserves a hearty "nah" in response.

the "moral panic" is a useful tool to people like me, who just want this cancer purged from the entire industry.

i want the rich to not be allowed to make games this way to enrich their selves, only to entertain us at a reasonable one time purchase, with maybe some expansions or expansion-sized dlc to buy later.

[dubious_doomhammer]

Is your argument against this revenue model that it's . . . intended to garner revenue through sales of said product?

Yes, the company selling a thing wants to incentivize customers to buy the thing. That's how business works.

Against microtransactions and lootboxes? Yes. Against paying for a product once or paying for a subscription? No.

Also, buying a "thing" is fine, you know what you're getting. Buying lootboxes that gives a random chance at obtaining a "thing", is not fine.

[Trifle]

The same definition means that buying Magic: The Gathering card packs is "gambling". Nobody ever raised the issue when kids were buying those. Why is it suddenly a big deal when it comes to video games?

I think the main issues are in the sense of 'urgency' and accessibility. While things like Magic are similar to gambling in a way, there are psychological and physical barriers that prevent the issue being as strong. You have to physically go to a store to buy the cards, so the expended effort is a great deal higher. There's also greater seperation between the trigger and the result. "I lost a magic game, so I need to go to the store and buy more cards" might incur a delay of a few hours or even das, by which point the urge might not be as strong. Also for children, they likely won't have physical access to more money than they're allowed to spend.

With video games alot of these situations are the reverse. Card details are likely saved on the computer / console for 1 reason or another and might be accessible to the game without the parent's knowledge. If you lose a computer game you just go in to the ingame store and click a few times (likewise if you don't get the result you want... just buy a few more).

Then there's also the whole marketing issue. Most video games with lootbox mechanics aren't advertised as such, and often even go to pains to hide it. It's easy to say the parent should be more responsible for in game purchases, but it's harder if the game doesn't make any mention of them and doesn't given any indication that parental supervision is necessary.

At the end of the day the sheer number of stories of 'I almost lost my marriage/home/whatever over spending on impulse loot box buys' or 'my child maxed out my card in his video game' is ample evidence that loot boxes are a problem.

[rogoth]

It's a real product, it's just digital. It's as "real" as an e-book or an mp3.
The product is part of a service, so sure, you "lose" it when the service ends. The same applies to anything; if you buy a lifetime membership at a gym and then the gym shuts down, your lifetime membership is "lost", too.
Price is a factor of value to the consumer. If it's not worth the price, just don't buy it. That people do buy these things says that the price is fine. This is how markets work.



You haven't explained why these practices aren't fine. Just why you, personally, don't enjoy them. Nothing's making you buy into these things. Literally nothing. Just go enjoy what you enjoy.



D&D was and is literally a "profiteering business practice". Businesses exist to make profits.

What I'm comparing is the moral panic aspect, since that's what this push against lootboxes boils down to; a moral panic. It's "gambling", and using that word is meant to instill some kind of kneejerk reaction. And my response to that is "Yes, and?" I don't see that as an issue. It's a form of "gambling" that we've never had any problem with kids engaging in before. It's a form that causes no discernable harm. What's the problem?

Again, I can understand why you, personally, might not like these business models. I'm pointing out that this means you should make a decision, for yourself, to not buy these products. That's fine. Nobody's forcing you to partake. A lot of people do enjoy them. Companies are, yes, trying to make more money. But that's literally a company's purpose. Lootbox mechanics are broadly popular. Because buy the lootboxes. Companies make a bunch more money. So it's a useful revenue system, and one people mostly enjoy. So what's the issue?

after reading this i can say for certainty that you are one of the grade A morons causing the games industry decline and fall into the money grabbing cesspit they dug themselves:

i'll tell you why these practices are bad since you seem unable or unwilling to understand/accept after being told by a few different people in this thread:

1) the way in which these items (loot boxes) are obtained is via digital means there is no physical product hand over nor any physical money paid the transaction is all done in the digital space, meaning that if the company went under and the game with it then you would be out of pocket and it is akin to fraud thisi s one potential issue of these things.

2) in many games that have lootbox mechanics they are in fact MANDATORY to purchase for game progression due to the developers putting in place 'walls' that prevent you from playing the game to earn the same rewards in a realistic time frame, the key word here is REALISTIC, sure in mathematical terms i could earn the points/coins/currency needed to unlock the best stuff in the game, but by the time that occurs the next game in the franchise is already out and the current version you're playing is dead and gone (using fifa as the example here).

3) due to the way in which 'accounts' work on console platforms and the in game store system for games on these platforms it is now easier than ever to spend excessive amounts of money without knowing it, and unless you knew beforehand as a parent to 'lock' your account so that it wasn't possible to spend anything via credit/debit card details then you wouldn't know that your kids had full access to your money, nowhere in any game literature does it state to do this, and only VERY recently have the ratings companies actually started giving 'warnings' as to possible in game spending.

4) this whole mechanic is just another in a long line of gambling mechanics that have existed for decades borderline centuries, and while the current main topic of conversation is regarding kids having access to gambling (which is fundamentally wrong to me) via the way these games are made this issue affects all vulnerable people and those who are prone to this type of spending behaviour, trying to use the 'if you don't like it don't buy it' strawman arguement just shows that you have little to no care for the victims of this mechanic, the reason 'addiction' even exists is because some people have on a genetic level as well as in their brain makeup a predisposition to this sort of behaviour and these are the people that the game developers/publishers are aiming these games at, for these types of people they quite literally cannot control themselves and as such are the ones that need the most help to stop this type of predatory behaviour from the games industry.

5) as a follow on from 4), there was a recent testimonial where a mother caring for her adult son who has severe disabilities giving him the mental age of a 7 year old spent his entire life savings on a game he played that was at its core a simple puzzle solving game which for this person was a great way to teach him about basic puzzle solving as well as helping hand-eye coordination, and yet he was able to spend so much money on this game because of how it was monetised and how his mother who set up the account he used without realising that it was possible to buy things in game through the app store is at fault here?

i dare you, with a straight face to tell me and anyone else who reads this that you think disabled people who rely on games not only as entertainment but for educational purposes and as a way to help them engage with a good quality of life, should 'stop buying it if they don't like it'.

[Endus]

2 major things wrong with your statement, first off it's not a 'sudden' issue, it's been an issue for a very VERY long time, now i don't know where you live and i don't care to know but where i live and when i was a kid i remember there was a big fuss made of kids being able to buy football stickers/pokemon cards because of this exact issue, the only saving grace for these things was that the packs were in relative terms very cheap to buy and you were guaranteed to get at least 1 'good' quality item in them (shiny/holo sticker/card) and you could easily trade them around as they were physical items you could touch and see.

Bear in mind I'm in my 40s. So my own personal experience as a kid way predates pokemon cards. The hubbub didn't make any more sense back then. Nor was there every any real consideration of legal regulation, which is what we're talking about, here.

second, and the biggest issue with your statement is that out of context it seems like you are wilfully ignorant of the fact that MTG packs (as per your example) were given an age guidance of 13+ for the reason that it was expected that kids younger than that would have trouble understanding the rules of the game nad as such shouldn't be purchasing the cards to begin with, whereas with the likes of these pegi 3/ESRB -E for everyone bullshit it's taking games that any child with the necessary motor skills to play and monetising them with egregious and predatory mechanics to get kids and vulnerable people engaged with these mechanics in order to milk them for every penny they have, and when a game that is rated for anybody (3+ etc) it SHOULD NOT be mandatory to come with a parental warning to enable parental controls and to be aware of in game purchasing, because that situation should never exist in the first place and yet here we are in 2019 where this is the norm.

This isn't an argument against anything. Plus, so far as I know, the age rating on MTG was always a recommendation, by WotC themselves, and what I'm arguing against is government regulation. It's like how Lego might have an age rating of "8-80", but there's no legal barrier to selling that kit to a 7-year-old.

Against microtransactions and lootboxes? Yes. Against paying for a product once or paying for a subscription? No.

Also, buying a "thing" is fine, you know what you're getting. Buying lootboxes that gives a random chance at obtaining a "thing", is not fine.

Never was a problem with any other product. So why is it suddenly a problem when it's happening in a video game?

I think the main issues are in the sense of 'urgency' and accessibility. While things like Magic are similar to gambling in a way, there are psychological and physical barriers that prevent the issue being as strong. You have to physically go to a store to buy the cards, so the expended effort is a great deal higher. There's also greater seperation between the trigger and the result. "I lost a magic game, so I need to go to the store and buy more cards" might incur a delay of a few hours or even das, by which point the urge might not be as strong. Also for children, they likely won't have physical access to more money than they're allowed to spend.

With video games alot of these situations are the reverse. Card details are likely saved on the computer / console for 1 reason or another and might be accessible to the game without the parent's knowledge. If you lose a computer game you just go in to the ingame store and click a few times (likewise if you don't get the result you want... just buy a few more).

Then there's also the whole marketing issue. Most video games with lootbox mechanics aren't advertised as such, and often even go to pains to hide it. It's easy to say the parent should be more responsible for in game purchases, but it's harder if the game doesn't make any mention of them and doesn't given any indication that parental supervision is necessary.

At the end of the day the sheer number of stories of 'I almost lost my marriage/home/whatever over spending on impulse loot box buys' or 'my child maxed out my card in his video game' is ample evidence that loot boxes are a problem.

Those aren't indicators that the system is a problem, that's an indicator that certain people need to manage their money/children better.

It isn't any different from "I almost lost my home because I bought thousands of beanie babies on Amazon" or something.

- - - Updated - - -

after reading this i can say for certainty that you are one of the grade A morons causing the games industry decline and fall into the money grabbing cesspit they dug themselves:

i'll tell you why these practices are bad since you seem unable or unwilling to understand/accept after being told by a few different people in this thread:

1) the way in which these items (loot boxes) are obtained is via digital means there is no physical product hand over nor any physical money paid the transaction is all done in the digital space, meaning that if the company went under and the game with it then you would be out of pocket and it is akin to fraud thisi s one potential issue of these things.

So? There's a ton of products that aren't physical. A lot of video games themselves are delivered digitally these days.

2) in many games that have lootbox mechanics they are in fact MANDATORY to purchase for game progression due to the developers putting in place 'walls' that prevent you from playing the game to earn the same rewards in a realistic time frame, the key word here is REALISTIC, sure in mathematical terms i could earn the points/coins/currency needed to unlock the best stuff in the game, but by the time that occurs the next game in the franchise is already out and the current version you're playing is dead and gone (using fifa as the example here).

This is reason to decide not to buy a game. Not a reason to demand regulation against that game. Just make informed choices about spending your money.

3) due to the way in which 'accounts' work on console platforms and the in game store system for games on these platforms it is now easier than ever to spend excessive amounts of money without knowing it, and unless you knew beforehand as a parent to 'lock' your account so that it wasn't possible to spend anything via credit/debit card details then you wouldn't know that your kids had full access to your money, nowhere in any game literature does it state to do this, and only VERY recently have the ratings companies actually started giving 'warnings' as to possible in game spending.

It isn't the company's job to make sure you don't spend too much on then. C'mon. This is the user's fault, 100%.

4) this whole mechanic is just another in a long line of gambling mechanics that have existed for decades borderline centuries, and while the current main topic of conversation is regarding kids having access to gambling (which is fundamentally wrong to me) via the way these games are made this issue affects all vulnerable people and those who are prone to this type of spending behaviour, trying to use the 'if you don't like it don't buy it' strawman arguement just shows that you have little to no care for the victims of this mechanic, the reason 'addiction' even exists is because some people have on a genetic level as well as in their brain makeup a predisposition to this sort of behaviour and these are the people that the game developers/publishers are aiming these games at, for these types of people they quite literally cannot control themselves and as such are the ones that need the most help to stop this type of predatory behaviour from the games industry.

I'll repeat; so what?

You and others keep saying "but it's gambling", and never explaining why that's a bad thing.

5) as a follow on from 4), there was a recent testimonial where a mother caring for her adult son who has severe disabilities giving him the mental age of a 7 year old spent his entire life savings on a game he played that was at its core a simple puzzle solving game which for this person was a great way to teach him about basic puzzle solving as well as helping hand-eye coordination, and yet he was able to spend so much money on this game because of how it was monetised and how his mother who set up the account he used without realising that it was possible to buy things in game through the app store is at fault here?

His mother, assuming her son's disabled enough to need a caretaker. If he isn't, then her son. It's 100% the fault of the customer, here.

i dare you, with a straight face to tell me and anyone else who reads this that you think disabled people who rely on games not only as entertainment but for educational purposes and as a way to help them engage with a good quality of life, should 'stop buying it if they don't like it'.

That's a ridiculous position.

She could have set the account up to limit his purchases (and should have). She could have set up an account for such purchases to come from, to limit how much he could spend. She could have gotten him engaged with a different game, in the first place, because the market has a ton of options. This particular issue isn't that this one guy should be denied access to video games, it's that if he's disabled and can't make money decisions for himself, his mother should never have put him in the position of doing so for himself.

Which she did.

Customers spending money they can't afford is not the fault of the company they're spending it on. They need to take some personal responsibility.

[THEORACLE64]

That’s always been pretty obvious, no? You’re paying for random luck, so y’know, gambling at what you’ll get.

[Trifle]

Those aren't indicators that the system is a problem, that's an indicator that certain people need to manage their money/children better.

It isn't any different from "I almost lost my home because I bought thousands of beanie babies on Amazon" or something.

I wasn't aware that overpurchases of beanie babies was a prevailing social problem. By that logic "I almost lost my home due to problem gambling" is also just a problem of personal responsibility and doesn't need to be regulated.

The problem isn't that micro transactions exist, it's more to do with how they can be used abusively with psychological tricks designed to extract money from people that can't necessarily afford it. Gambling has regulations to protect problem gamblers from themselves, but game companies refuse to even consider this issue, which is why the government may need to eventually step in.

[Endus]

I wasn't aware that overpurchases of beanie babies was a prevailing social problem.

And zero actual evidence has been presented to suggest that lootboxes are a prevailing social problem, either.

By that logic "I almost lost my home due to problem gambling" is also just a problem of personal responsibility and doesn't need to be regulated.

On the contrary, it's absolutely considered to be a personal responsibility issue. Gambling addiction is an illness, yes. But casinos and such aren't held responsible if an addict overspends on their habit there. Not unless they can be shown to A> have been aware of the individual's sickness, and B> deliberately acted to enable that disease, to their customer's detriment. Which is a steep standard to meet. You have to prove that he was walking out after spending a reasonable amount, and that they deliberately targeted him with some freebies beyond what they offer to anyone to try and lure him back, specifically.

The problem isn't that micro transactions exist, it's more to do with how they can be used abusively with psychological tricks designed to extract money from people that can't necessarily afford it. Gambling has regulations to protect problem gamblers from themselves, but game companies refuse to even consider this issue, which is why the government may need to eventually step in.

Those "psychological tricks" are also, basically, "things people find enjoyable". And again, I've yet to see evidence of any real problem, to begin with. Everyone has one of a handful of extreme anecdotes, but anecdotes don't make grounds for sweeping legislation.