Page 38 of 40 FirstFirst ...
28
36
37
38
39
40
LastLast
  1. #741
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennett View Post
    But that was clear in my point - why be pedantic if you knew what my point was?
    What the actual fuck you on about…? How exactly are you being clear about here?

    You stated that the solution for the loot box is simple, that parents just don’t have to stop giving the kids their credit cards, I’m merely pointing out that one doesn’t require a credit card to buy loot boxes, since most platforms sell pre-paid cards at most game stores, that anyone can pick up with cash, thus making your “solution” pretty pointless, how is that being pedantic?

  2. #742
    Quote Originally Posted by Myobi View Post
    What the actual fuck you on about…? How exactly are you being clear about anything here?

    You stated that the solution for the loot box is simple, that parents just don’t have to stop giving the kids their credit cards, I’m merely pointing out that one doesn’t require a credit card to buy loot boxes, since most platforms sell pre-paid cards at most game stores, that anyone can pick up with cash, thus making your “solution” pretty pointless, how is that being pedantic?
    Because your scenario is ridiculous - now it's up to game devs to also make sure your kids don't pick up your cash and buy pre-paid cards? My point was very simple - if you're a reasonable adult - the only way you will pay for a lootbox will be if you buy a lootbox.

    You're talking about something completely different - I'm not talking about someone taking cash from you and buying a pre-paid card, that's not an accident - I'm talking about the narrative we see repeated where kids use their parents cards to buy lootboxes - and the solution to that is indeed simple.

    I'm in no way a supporter of loot boxes, I don't buy them - I never will buy them. I just think the idea that we need the government to wade in because people are dumb with their wallets is ridiculous.

    So, it's really not my fault you've missed my point or have elected to ignore it for the sake of being pedantic (which you are being).

  3. #743
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldfingaz View Post
    Again, you post something incredibly useless and besides the point. The part I put in bold, is because the commission believes it's gambling, and thus needs to be regulated. I'm not saying change how gambling works, I'm saying it is gambling and thus needs to be regulated like all gambling is.

    As far as I can tell, the original post had a link to a news site which states:


    Source

    I can't find links that specify that people are asking for regulations to include other addictive and immersive aspects of video games. Unless you're talking about Prince Harry asking for it to be looked into? There's a much easier way to manage play time than there is gambling I'm afraid. The out-of-sight gambling is a giant problem that needs to be resolved.

    I will add this:

    If they chose to sell cosmetic items, without the randomness and only cosmetic which does not effect your game play at all, then I'm all for it. It's just that the gambling portion is what's wrong. They'd still make money off of straight micro-transactions without exploiting people's gambling addictions or introducing them to gambling.
    You're wrong. The gambling commission is looking at loot-boxes but at no point does there report say they are gambling. Under UK law for an activity to count as gambling it must award a cash prize or a prize that can easily be converted to cash.

    So no, the inquiry into immersive and addictive technology carried out by the DCMS committee is not about enforcing existing regulation, one of its recommendations is changing the law so gambling includes loot-boxes. They don't stop there, they also raised concerns about the microtransactions in Fortnite BR (a game which does not use loot-boxes) and were interested in how developers could restrict the amount people play. They also mentioned Prince Harry's calls for it to be banned which means it is something that is on law-makers' minds.

    If you think it's "useless and besides the point" you can only blame yourself for making the false claim that "people are simply asking the government to enforce gambling regulations" when people are asking the government to change regulations and possibly bring in new regulations to save children from games that can be considered "immersive and addictive."

  4. #744
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    And a law making mechanics like that illegal would also make the following illegal:
    - TCG's
    - Kinder Surprise
    - Any monthly loot crates
    - Dollar Store kids surprise bags
    - Seal tokens in WoW
    - Arguably RNG drops in WoW.

    And the list can go on. It's why laws need to be very precise.
    The law can simply state that online gambling isn't allowed unless licensed and regulated properly, and believing loot boxes within games are gambling. Again the things you listed are entirely off base. There is no set value for TCG cards, Kinder Surprise Toys, Monthly Loot Cart items, or Dollar store surprise bags. There is however value attached to items within games such as call of duty blackops 4. They sell character skins for approximately 1000 Call of Duty Points wheras you can buy 1100 CoD Points for ~13.49 CAD, meaning that skin is worth nearly 13 bucks. OR you can buy crates and try to unlock other skins by chance. Meaning, spend 200 CoD Points and get three tries at something worth 1000 CoD Points or you can win something at 50 Call of Duty Points, therefore meaning you can get 150 points worth of stuff, or even just 50 points worth as you may get 2 duplicate.

    In Kinder Surprise, TCG, Monthly loot crates or surprise bags you get exactly it's worth, unless someone else deems it's worth more.

    WoW Seals and RNG loot from WoW, legit dumbest thing brought to the table, congratulations.


    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    There is indeed no arguing that some people can become addicted to the results. There is however complete leeway to argue that it gives reason for banning. As has been brought up before several times in this thread there is a laundry list of things that are addictive. Many of them are not banned.
    Ok may as well just legalize all things that can be addictive by this logic. "Other things are addictive but not illegal", cool. We're not talking about those things right now, we're talking about these things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    Because there are lot of other solutions besides the outright ban? Because history has shown that government regulation can be ineffective? Or have unintended consequences? Because companies can often find quick loopholes around poorly thought out hastily implemented legislation?w
    Again, stupid argument. "They can find ways around it so who cares?" a loop whole pops up and you close it. Typically loop holes aren't really there when making things entirely illegal as there are teams of people ensuring it, and if one does popup they close it again, problem solved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    The fact you can only see one reason why someone could be against this shows a lack of understanding of the issue.
    [/QUOTE]

    There legitimately is no other argument, not that I see no other argument. "I like it!" isn't a reason neither is "I don't care". There is a huge issue right now with impressionable children (Please note impressionable children have always been a problem hence age limits on smoking/drinking/GAMBLING etc) and out of sight gambling.

    If you can't figure that out, or think of it to be more important than your cute little hate you got from a lootbox, then you're part of the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    You're wrong. The gambling commission is looking at loot-boxes but at no point does there report say they are gambling. Under UK law for an activity to count as gambling it must award a cash prize or a prize that can easily be converted to cash.

    So no, the inquiry into immersive and addictive technology carried out by the DCMS committee is not about enforcing existing regulation, one of its recommendations is changing the law so gambling includes loot-boxes. They don't stop there, they also raised concerns about the microtransactions in Fortnite BR (a game which does not use loot-boxes) and were interested in how developers could restrict the amount people play. They also mentioned Prince Harry's calls for it to be banned which means it is something that is on law-makers' minds.

    If you think it's "useless and besides the point" you can only blame yourself for making the false claim that "people are simply asking the government to enforce gambling regulations" when people are asking the government to change regulations and possibly bring in new regulations to save children from games that can be considered "immersive and addictive."
    Literally posted a quote where the commission said loot-boxes were gambling.

    Also yes I still think your posts are useless. You're comparing apples to oranges. Gambling is no where near in the same vicinity as video game addictions at this present time. Gambling addictions are well documented whereas video game addictions are on the rise, they're much easier to counter than gambling. Apples vs Oranges.
    Last edited by Goldfingaz; 2019-06-24 at 10:49 PM.

  5. #745
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennett View Post
    Because your scenario is ridiculous - now it's up to game devs to also make sure your kids don't pick up your cash and buy pre-paid cards?
    Your arguing against your own silly assumptions now, because I haven’t said such a thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bennett View Post
    My point was very simple - if you're a reasonable adult - the only way you will pay for a lootbox will be if you buy a lootbox.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennett View Post
    The solution is simple – don't let your kid have access to your card (or don't be a shit parent and actually spend time with them), and if you're an adult - never buy lootboxes.
    That clearly wasn’t just your point, and again, I merely pointed out that there are alternative ways to purchase them without requiring a credit card.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bennett View Post
    You're talking about something completely different – I'm not talking about someone taking cash from you and buying a pre-paid card, that's not an accident - I'm talking about the narrative we see repeated where kids use their parents cards to buy lootboxes - and the solution to that is indeed simple.
    I’m mentioning it because it’s a fucking alternative to it that renders the “just don’t give your kids your CC!” “solution” completely fucking pointless… what part of it is so hard to understand? How am I the one missing the point here or ignoring shit here?

    I'm in no way a supporter of loot boxes, I don't buy them - I never will buy them. I just think the idea that we need the government to wade in because people are dumb with their wallets is ridiculous.
    Yes, and I agree with that, I’ve said it a fuck ton of times already, why do you think most people here just want the rating systems to handle this shit? Because they were made exactly to avoid having the fucking government stepping in this kind of shit.

  6. #746
    Sounds like parenting is the problem, not loot boxes. If your kid is addicted to loot boxes, take away their PC/console. If your kid needs their PC for school, monitor them when they're on it and take it away when you can't monitor them. If it's on their phone, replace it with a flip phone that doesn't support games.

    The only government regulation we might need on loot boxes is requiring companies to publish the odds, just like the odds of winning are on the back of scratch-offs, but even then I'd only make it mandatory in games where you can easily resell/transfer items you get in loot boxes.

  7. #747
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldfingaz View Post
    Literally posted a quote where the commission said loot-boxes were gambling.
    No you didn't, you quoted the BBC website. At no point in the report they are referencing do the gambling commission say that they currently consider loot boxes to be gambling. The commission made their position clear in a report from 2017.

    A key factor in deciding if that line has been crossed is whether in-game items acquired ‘via a game of chance’ can be considered money or money’s worth. In practical terms this means that where in-game items obtained via loot boxes are confined for use within the game and cannot be cashed out it is unlikely to be caught as a licensable gambling activity. In those cases our legal powers would not allow us to step in.
    Also yes I still think your posts are useless. You're comparing apples to oranges. Gambling is no where near in the same vicinity as video game addictions at this present time. Gambling addictions are well documented whereas video game addictions are on the rise, they're much easier to counter than gambling. Apples vs Oranges.
    If nothing else I hope I've shown the importance of going to a primary source if possible and not relying on news reports that could be flawed for a miriad of reasons.

    It doesn't matter so much whether you and I consider gambling, loot-boxes and other forms of addiction and compulsion connected to video games. Elected law-makers in the UK are currently inquiring into anything that could be considered "immersive and addictive" technology including loot boxes, gambling simulators and games like Fortnite with their non-loot-box microtransactions.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by seleri View Post
    Sounds like parenting is the problem, not loot boxes. If your kid is addicted to loot boxes, take away their PC/console. If your kid needs their PC for school, monitor them when they're on it and take it away when you can't monitor them. If it's on their phone, replace it with a flip phone that doesn't support games.

    The only government regulation we might need on loot boxes is requiring companies to publish the odds, just like the odds of winning are on the back of scratch-offs, but even then I'd only make it mandatory in games where you can easily resell/transfer items you get in loot boxes.
    I think the most important piece of legislation would be looking in to how loot-boxes and other microtransactions are marketed or pushed in games. Television has a ton of rules that have to be followed when advertising children's products or during children's programming and those sorts of protections should be carried over into video games.

    They could also do with looking at parental controls for restricting spending and play-time. Most parents these days are gen-X and millennials so it's not like they're technologically illiterate and it shouldn't be too hard to ensure parents have some system of verification or notification on their smartphone.

  8. #748
    Quote Originally Posted by sam86 View Post
    its joke because usa standards for violence is different than most world
    This literally has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Every other rating systems has a rating between 13 and 16. ESRB literally jumps from 12 to 17 with no inbetween at all. No one is talking about the culture differences and tolerance, and let's not steer this topic into areas it wasn't intended with replies like this. there are games that are perfectly fine for 15/16 year olds that get slapped with an M and also plenty of games that are questionable for a 12 year old that get slapped with a T. Because they drift to the closest one and have this massive fucking gap in their ratings.
    Last edited by Tech614; 2019-06-24 at 11:51 PM.

  9. #749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    I think the most important piece of legislation would be looking in to how loot-boxes and other microtransactions are marketed or pushed in games. Television has a ton of rules that have to be followed when advertising children's products or during children's programming and those sorts of protections should be carried over into video games.

    They could also do with looking at parental controls for restricting spending and play-time. Most parents these days are gen-X and millennials so it's not like they're technologically illiterate and it shouldn't be too hard to ensure parents have some system of verification or notification on their smartphone.
    This is pretty much spot on.

  10. #750
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    Most parents these days are gen-Z and millennials so it's not like they're technologically illiterate and it shouldn't be too hard to ensure parents have some system of verification or notification on their smartphone.
    Hahaha, dude, my grandmother is more technologically adept then some of the gen-Zers and late millenials I've seen. We have this 25 year old guy I work with who can't figure out anything tech wise, he couldn't even install printer drivers.

    The early millenials who grew up with the computer, the ones in their 30s, are the ones who are tech savvy. The mid 90s+ millenials and the gen-Zers get everything handed to them and can't do simple tech things.
    Last edited by Onikaroshi; 2019-06-25 at 01:10 AM.

  11. #751
    Quote Originally Posted by Onikaroshi View Post
    Hahaha, dude, my grandmother is more technologically adept then some of the gen-Xers and late millenials I've seen. We have this 25 year old guy I work with who can't figure out anything tech wise, he couldn't even install printer drivers.

    The early millenials who grew up with the computer, the ones in their 30s, are the ones who are tech savvy. The mid 90s+ millenials and the gen-xers get everything handed to them and can't do simple tech things.
    This is true, while boomers and other older gens aren't the most keen on tech it's usually just because they're too old and stubborn to learn/care. Gen Zers and maybe even late millennials literally don't even know how to exist without a phone holding their hand through life. Learn your way around town? Nah, let GPS handle it for you. Hungry? Have alexa order dinner. Phone messing up? Well shit panic, get to the store and buy a new one ASAP instead of actually trouble shooting anything.

    It's that generation that is truly fucked if anything bad ever happens. 80s-early 90s kids seems to be the happy medium of people that can both use technology well, and also exist and problem solve without it holding their hands.

  12. #752
    Quote Originally Posted by Tech614 View Post
    This is true, while boomers and other older gens aren't the most keen on tech it's usually just because they're too old and stubborn to learn/care. Gen Zers and maybe even late millennials literally don't even know how to exist without a phone holding their hand through life. Learn your way around town? Nah, let GPS handle it for you. Hungry? Have alexa order dinner. Phone messing up? Well shit panic, get to the store and buy a new one ASAP instead of actually trouble shooting anything.

    It's that generation that is truly fucked if anything bad ever happens. 80s-early 90s kids seems to be the happy medium of people that can both use technology well, and also exist and problem solve without it holding their hands.
    Just now realized I put X instead of Z /facepalm, but you got it.

    I seriously worry about the future of the world when those people take over... It's a seriously real 1st world problem.

  13. #753
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    No you didn't, you quoted the BBC website. At no point in the report they are referencing do the gambling commission say that they currently consider loot boxes to be gambling. The commission made their position clear in a report from 2017.





    If nothing else I hope I've shown the importance of going to a primary source if possible and not relying on news reports that could be flawed for a miriad of reasons.

    It doesn't matter so much whether you and I consider gambling, loot-boxes and other forms of addiction and compulsion connected to video games. Elected law-makers in the UK are currently inquiring into anything that could be considered "immersive and addictive" technology including loot boxes, gambling simulators and games like Fortnite with their non-loot-box microtransactions..
    https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.u...018-Report.pdf

    Search loot box, it's in the PDF. I'll give you a hint, Page 6 and "Online participation" if they did not believe it was a form of Gambling they would not consider it a part of online gambling. Welcome to 2018 and thanks for playing.

  14. #754
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldfingaz View Post
    https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.u...018-Report.pdf

    Search loot box, it's in the PDF. I'll give you a hint, Page 6 and "Online participation" if they did not believe it was a form of Gambling they would not consider it a part of online gambling. Welcome to 2018 and thanks for playing.
    You do realize they're not calling it Gambling in that right? They're relating it TO gambling but not directly calling it gambling, it's even after a paragraph discussing "gambling style games" like Zynga poker or some shit.

  15. #755
    Quote Originally Posted by Onikaroshi View Post
    You do realize they're not calling it Gambling in that right? They're relating it TO gambling but not directly calling it gambling, it's even after a paragraph discussing "gambling style games" like Zynga poker or some shit.
    Yes because -

    Where a product does not meet that test to be classed as gambling but could potentially cause harm to children, parents will undoubtedly expect proper protections to be put in place by those that create, sell and regulate those products. We have a long track record in keeping children safe and we are keen to share our experiences and expertise with others that have a similar responsibility. Whether gambling or not, we all have a responsibility to keep children and young people safe.
    They're monitoring loot box participation in case it correlates with gambling problems in which case they need a change in gambling regulations, or if it causes similar problems and another agency needs wholly new regulations. The fact is without a change in the law loot-boxes will not fall under the juristiction of the gambling commission.

  16. #756
    The Insane Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    17,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Polly3685 View Post
    I'm sure it varies state to state. I have no idea what they are locally anymore. When I started working at 16 I could pull 40 hr/wk in retail without breaking any labor laws. Not that I always got that many.


    This is Michigan laws

    Maximum Hours of Work for Minors

    Working hour restrictions limit how many hours a minor may work per day, and per week.
    For Minors Under 16:
    8 hours of work per day and 48 per week are permitted during a schoolweek. The 48 hours include combined hours of work and school (work is permitted outside of school hours, no earlier than 3:00 pm, Monday - Friday).
    For Minors Ages 16 and 17:
    10 hours of work per day, 48 per week, up to 6 days per week are permitted when school is not in session. During the schoolweek, up to 24 hours may be worked.
    Notes: A minor under 16 years shall not be employed in an occupation subject to this act for longer than a weekly average of 8 hours per day. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. ? 409.110. Administered by Michigan Department of Education.
    https://www.minimum-wage.org/michigan/child-labor-laws

    Sucked trying to work while in school.
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.

  17. #757
    Quote Originally Posted by Myobi View Post
    You don't even need to go that far, if I remember correctly @Jtbrig7390 works in a gamestop, ask him what may happen if he sells a +18 rated game to a minor.
    Just a small correction its 17+..

    But to answer your question, You will be fined and fired if you are caught selling a M rated title to a minor. The fine can range between $500-$1500 and there is no second chance.

    (The punishment and chances can very per state/company). It isn't a law in most (if any) states but it is policy in every single company/store that sells games, But the punishment can very per company.
    Last edited by Jtbrig7390; 2019-06-25 at 01:58 AM.
    My PC: Intel Core i5-4690K|16GB DDR3-1600|1TB HD|EVGA GeForce GTX 1070
    Check me out....Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing, Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing.

  18. #758
    The Insane Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    17,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Jtbrig7390 View Post
    Just a small correction its 17+..

    But to answer your question, You will be fined and fired if you are caught selling a M rated title to a minor. The fine can range between $500-$1500 and there is no second chance.

    (The punishment and chances can very per state/company). It isn't a law in most (if any) states but it is policy in every single company/store that sells games, But the punishment can very per company.
    Weren't you saying kids are going to do stupid stuff no matter what? How will this stop them? All it does is mean they have to get a friend that is 18+ to buy the game for them. Or their parent, I mean if the parent doesn't care they are spending 100's on "gambling" why would they care about a M rating?
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.

  19. #759
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    Weren't you saying kids are going to do stupid stuff no matter what? How will this stop them? All it does is mean they have to get a friend that is 18+ to buy the game for them. Or their parent, I mean if the parent doesn't care they are spending 100's on "gambling" why would they care about a M rating?
    It removes the responsibility from the company to 100% the parents. Also don't know what state you live in or the store you buy from but in mine you can't just get a friend to do it.

    It must be a parent/guardian.

    By ur logic we should remove age laws from buying alcohol and cigarettes cause they can just get a "friend" to get it.
    My PC: Intel Core i5-4690K|16GB DDR3-1600|1TB HD|EVGA GeForce GTX 1070
    Check me out....Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing, Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing.

  20. #760
    The Insane Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    17,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Jtbrig7390 View Post
    It removes the responsibility from the company to 100% the parents. Also don't know about the state you live in or the store you buy from but in mine you can't just get a friend to do it.

    It must be a parent/guardian.
    How you gonna stop them? If they are 18+ why wouldn't they be allowed to buy the game. Same as how it happens with cigarettes/alcohol right now.


    I personally think it already is 100% on the parent. Don't see why we need laws from the government to make it more so.
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •