(Loot Box's) Number of child gamblers quadruples in just two years....

[Tech614]

Helicopter parent much? When I turned half my life ago and got a job (had to have a license first to get my own ass there) my Mother didn't give a single shit what I spent my money on, I worked for it, it was mine to spend.

Granted I wasn't a druggy or an alchy so she didn't really need to worry, basically just bought video games and systems.

A kid with a part time job earning $600-800 a month with no bills or responsibilities should be monitored by their parent on what they spend their money on... this ain't rocket science nor is it claiming it's not "their" money. lmao.

[Onikaroshi]

A kid with a part time job earning $600-800 a month with no bills or responsibilities should be monitored by their parent on what they spend their money on... this ain't rocket science nor is it claiming it's not "their" money. lmao.

I mean, to each their own, but as long as they ain't buying hookers and blow who really cares, if they want to waste that 600-800 dollars a month on MTX, so be it.

Man though, is that what kids nowadays make? I was lucky to pull in like 400 a month at 5.50/hr, and that was above minimum wage.

[Polly3685]

A kid with a part time job earning $600-800 a month with no bills or responsibilities should be monitored by their parent on what they spend their money on... this ain't rocket science nor is it claiming it's not "their" money. lmao.

Thinks a kid old enough to work should have their money monitored but thinks parents can't be expected to monitor if their kids are buying loot boxes. And I'm the one who is being contrarian for the sake of it... Fucking priceless.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, to each their own, but as long as they ain't buying hookers and blow who really cares, if they want to waste that 600-800 dollars a month on MTX, so be it.

Man though, is that what kids nowadays make? I was lucky to pull in like 400 a month at 5.50/hr, and that was above minimum wage.

If it's net income 800 is pushing full time on minimum wage, gross would still be close to 30 hr/wk assuming we're talking about the US.

[Onikaroshi]

If it's net income 800 is pushing full time on minimum wage, gross would still be close to 30 hr/wk assuming we're talking about the US.

I thought so, and with labor laws the way they are, ain't no kid pushing 30h/wk. I was lucky to get 8 during school and 15 in the summer because MI child labor laws SUCKED.

[Polly3685]

I thought so, and with labor laws the way they are, ain't no kid pushing 30h/wk. I was lucky to get 8 during school and 15 in the summer because MI child labor laws SUCKED.

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.

[Tech614]

Loot boxes exist because people buy them. 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.

Yawn, the usual excuses that have been proven wrong multiple times in this thread and do nothing to solve the problem.

Let's make crack legal- what's the problem? Just don't buy it!

Regulation exists for a reason, and government only steps in when the industry fails to properly regulate itself. If it comes to that they have no one to blame but themselves.

[Polly3685]

Jesus Christ, everytime I see or hear Jim Sterling I immediately thank the heavens that I do not look or sound like Jim Sterling

- - - Updated - - -

Loot boxes exist because people buy them. 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.

Holy shit, someone who understands!

[Onikaroshi]

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.

I was doing 30-40 originally then the changed it so that if a minor worked over 4 hours they needed at 1hr uninterrupted, paid break... I worked in grocery, that shit ain't happening. So they started scheduling me for 4 hrs max, and then it was just easier to hire an adult that didn't have such limitations. So i started getting like 4 hrs a day on the weekend.... it sucked.

[Onikaroshi]

Depends on the system, ESRB (US) rates video games M for mature (17+) or A for adult only (18+), PEGI (EU) rates the games as PEGI 3/7/12/16/18...

...and I quote "retailers now have to legally follow the Pegi (Pan-European Game Information) system, which gives games age ratings of 12, 16 and 18. Any shops that sell games to kids under the age limit could be prosecuted.", so this entire "parents are 100% responsible!" is utterly pointless, because the regulation is already there, it's all a matter if loot boxes should be covered by it or not.

I don't know about ESRB, but I believe that PEGI is leaving the issue to be handled by the gambling commissions.



Holy shit, some one who also ignores the fact that you don't need a credit card! =P

ESRB needs to step on it around here, because if the US gov't gets involved its going to be nothing but pain for the gaming companies and gamers alike. Entire reason the ESRB was even created was to self police and keep the gov't the fuck out of video games because the way they would have solved violent games would have been bad.

I see no issue if the loot boxes automatically bump ratings up though, most parents ignore the ratings but then if something happens its on them.

[Tech614]

Depends on the system, ESRB (US) rates video games M for mature (17+) or A for adult only (18+), PEGI (EU) rates the games as PEGI 3/7/12/16/18...

...and I quote "retailers now have to legally follow the Pegi (Pan-European Game Information) system, which gives games age ratings of 12, 16 and 18. Any shops that sell games to kids under the age limit could be prosecuted.", so this entire "parents are 100% responsible!" is utterly pointless, because the regulation is already there, it's all a matter if loot boxes should be covered by it or not.

I don't know about ESRB, but I believe that PEGI is leaving the issue to be handled by the gambling commissions.

ESRB is actually kind of a joke compared to PEGI and CERO. CERO does all ages, 12, 15, 17 and 18 in their ratings. ESRB has some weird ass void where Uncharted in which you literally shoot people in the head with guns somehow gets a T rating, the same as games like Final Fantasy or Zelda that have really tame violence in comparison. Also lots of M rated games that could use those 15/16 ratings instead of M like say Persona 5 which literally has a handful of curse words and a few scenes with bikinis in it... M rating tho lol, teenager would see worse in a teen drama on netflix.

[Onikaroshi]

ESRB is actually kind of a joke compared to PEGI and CERO. CERO does all ages, 12, 15, 17 and 18 in their ratings. ESRB has some weird ass void where Uncharted in which you literally shoot people in the head with guns somehow gets a T rating, the same as games like Final Fantasy or Zelda that have really tame violence in comparison. Also lots of M rated games that could use those 15/16 ratings instead of M like say Persona 5 which literally has a handful of curse words and a few scenes with bikinis in it... M rating tho lol, teenager would see worse in a teen drama on netflix.

the US always has gaps, you look at some old movies before pg-13 was added (think the first pg-13 movie released was red dawn iirc) and there was pg movies with nudity and f bombs.

We could definitely use like a 15 or 16 rating.

[Onikaroshi]

What are you talking about? If you don't have a card on the platform how could you by lootboxes?

PS, Xbox, battle.net, etc. all have physical cards you can buy to add money. You don't need a CC

[Krastyn]

I would classify loot boxes as online gambling as you're playing a game of chance with money for a potential gain, whether it's cosmetic or not.

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.

Why? Because there's no arguing that people become addicted to the results.

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.

Honestly, I couldn't see why anyone would support this method beyond tinfoil hats going "Well what else will the government do?!?".

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

The fact you can only see one reason why someone could be against this shows a lack of understanding of the issue.

[Onikaroshi]

That goes against my original point - there's no way you can "accidentally" buy lootboxes

I don't think anyone is arguing that, its moreso kids not understanding what gambling and money are really just getting the rush from "winning" something, idk, I don't really care either way, I just don't want the gov't involved.

[j0hncramer]

I'm certainly no fan of loot boxes, but I don't see any reason the government should be involved in whether or not you can purchase them. I also see no reason why gambling should be illegal. If dumb people want to throw all their money in the toilet, let them.

[sam86]

Cool, nice to know we're still blaming the wrong people here.

that was obvious sarcasm ?

- - - Updated - - -

ESRB is actually kind of a joke compared to PEGI and CERO. CERO does all ages, 12, 15, 17 and 18 in their ratings. ESRB has some weird ass void where Uncharted in which you literally shoot people in the head with guns somehow gets a T rating, the same as games like Final Fantasy or Zelda that have really tame violence in comparison. Also lots of M rated games that could use those 15/16 ratings instead of M like say Persona 5 which literally has a handful of curse words and a few scenes with bikinis in it... M rating tho lol, teenager would see worse in a teen drama on netflix.

its joke because usa standards for violence is different than most world (except brazil i think), in usa it is far more acceptable to see blood and gore and guns and head explode but dear god if u see a female nipple from a girl who got blown up by a mine, she must keep her clothes while blown to pieces
it has been mocked many times by americans themselves, but it still the same, society there accept violence far easier than rest of world while they are far more aggressive against nudity, still better than other countries like any 3rd world country for start

- - - Updated - - -

It's not fucking rocket science. Neither is raising kids.

as someone who is follow space news since ever, and also raised kids, I can safely say rocket science is far easier than raising a single kid

[Dhrizzle]

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."

[Goldfingaz]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[seleri]

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.

[Dhrizzle]

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 - - -

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.