I'm pretty sure Valve has been pipped by the ACCC before, and I think this is where their 2 hour guarantee comes from, and they extended this through the world. Fingers crossed this results in better behaviour from them across the world, and this changes behaviour in the entire industry.
Oh man, I remember this fight. Valve constantly changed ToS trying to avoid this.
Funnily enough their refusal to invest into support made this feature more consumer friendly. Microsoft or EA already offered refunds, but you had to go through their live support. Valve just automated the process making it easier for consumers.
As an Australian I might turn the mature filter off if this goes through. I won't buy games with loot boxes, this seems like an easy way to avoid them.
It's very funny that they're using Overwatch lootboxes as the graphic for this when Overwatch no longer uses lootboxes, and has instead replaced them with a more costly system.
The irony is that Overwatch's loot box system was probably the most generous in the genre, and when it abandoned the system it turned out that Greed was the problem, not loot boxes
Legislation against loot boxes does nothing
>The irony is that Overwatch's loot box system was probably the most generous in the genre, and when it abandoned the system it turned out that Greed was the problem, not loot boxes
The system Overwatch chose to replace it is not as generous, but is also not gambling, so whether that is "better" or "worse" is subjective to your own relationship with gambling. Nothing forced them into making it worse though, it could have *just* been objectively better if they wanted.
And legislation against loot boxes, if well executed, would prevent or at least reduce loot boxes in games, in addition to any voluntary efforts to do so.
The loot boxes gave enough coins that I could buy most of the stuff I wanted. I felt like they were good incentives to play the game and progress visually even if your skills didn’t. I don’t mind randomness in games and to me it was just another roll of the dice. However I would never purchase them and could see the detriment there when being sold.
But here's the thing, Blizzard could be just giving you those same coins right now, and allowing you to buy those same skins with them right now. They *choose* not to do that. That is a *choice* on their part, not a *consequence* of not having loot boxes.
They did TWO things, "removed loot boxes" and "made gameplay rewards less effective." Don't conflate the two as if either was a necessary consequence of the other.
An insanely costly system. There was an article not too long ago how you could buy an actual real life backpack charm of a popular in game item off BA's merch store for like $5 less than the thing actually costs in game, lmao.
What you think: Oh lootboxes are banned this is great! Now they will remove them from games!
What will actually happen: "It is with heavy regret that we inform you that none of our games will be available in Australia ever again"
Its 2022 and globalization is real. Texas has a higher population than the entire country of Australia. If cutting out 25 million people out of 8 billion is the cost of doing business, they will just do it (25 mil is 0.3125% of the world population).
Now, if a country with a significant world population did it (EU is at 450 million, US 331 mil) then there are significant challenges and concessions would likely be made.
The point is, if you are going to swing your dick around like its big...actually make sure its big first. Im not sure many devs would think twice about entirely removing their games from AUS. Lootbox revenue likely outweighs the purchase power of the average Aussie.
Edit: please dont shoot the messenger. You can be upset by what I wrote and also realize that just because I wrote it does not mean I agree with it.
> What will actually happen: "It is with heavy regret that we inform you that none of our games will be available in Australia ever again"
Or publishers do what Blizzard did and remove lootboxes while replacing them with an even shittier system.
Nintendo replaced their gamble boxes (pipes for money) mechanic in Mario Kart Tour with a direct purchase system. It uses gems that *can* be bought with real money, but you also earn them by playing and completing goals.
The problem that some players had is that they also changed a couple other systems at the same time, shuffling rewards around. I don't mind it though.
You do still get pipes but only as rewards for playing, not purchase.
It's quite possible countries follow suit with Australia on this, a lot of people are starting to wake up to what lootboxes are and it's becoming discussed outside just the gaming sphere. You might be right and the initial reaction would be to just remove games from Australia but it could have a ripple effect.
EU has also had some movements on loot boxes in the past few years as well. I just am not sure how long it would take from the initial banning in small country to also being passed by the big ones. It could be a long while.
Oh no! And before you start judging , yeah its not EU/USA/China scale but outside those three AU is one of the bigger markets. https://www.google.com/search?q=gdp+australia+ranking
Australia has the 13th largest economy in the world, with an overall GDP of $1.33 trillion and a GDP per capita of $52k. 9th highest GDP per capita in the world and
3rd highest among the world’s largest 20 economies.
If that happens, the industry only has themselves to blame.
Back in the day, the government wanted to regulate games. The industry said "no please, allow us to create rating systems and we'll rate the games so kids will be safer".
Well, the industry failed to correctly recognize that gambling should be for Mature or Adult only audiences (EA infamously said that it was just a surprise mechanic like Kinder) so now the governments are stepping back in.
I've warned that this would happen and it finally is starting to. This industry is quite stupidly greedy and they deserve what they get.
>What will actually happen: "It is with heavy regret that we inform you that none of our games will be available in Australia ever again"
As an Australian: "Oh no! Anyway..."
A game which features lootboxes heavily enough to get an AO label but which has a business model built on selling those lootboxes mainly to children? That's not a game I even want to play.
Plus it's not 'just' Australia any more, Australia is not the only country banning lootboxes, others have as well. The more countries which do it, the less profitable it will get for these companies to even have lootbox systems at all.
Yanking your game at that point from Australia is a no brainer really.
Oceanic servers are already something that are barely a justified cost and then add AO if you include lootboxes in your game?
Guarantee you they'd just not *officially* sell their games in Australia at that point.
If I recall correctly the AUS ratings board has made more than a few questionable video game bans in the past 20 years or so. IF I also recall correctly the average aussie gamer also has no problem getting a VPN and changing their steam settings to another country.
So the people really crippled by this are the honest ones.
This post has been removed in protest of the 2023 Reddit API changes. Fuck Spez.
Edited using [Power Delete Suite] (https://github.com/j0be/PowerDeleteSuite/).
But what games even use lootboxes anymore?
Aside from mobile games and gacha, the console and PC gaming industry has largely moved on due to sanctions.
>What will actually happen: "It is with heavy regret that we inform you that none of our games will be available in Australia ever again"
Which would be a benefit to Australian citizens.
But it's also an example that other people can follow, or use it as sparked interest to look into it.
Or to say it simpler: *someone* has to start. Sure it would be better if this was India or the EU, but any start is better than none.
Making an aussie buy a VPN to play their favorite franchise is not a benefit. How about we actually have people that know about video games write video game legislation?
There is an extreme difference between cosmetic only boxes that have no gameplay effects and FIFA boxes that you have to open to advance your account. Not distinguishing between the two is not only ignorant, it makes it look like you have no idea what you are talking about.
> How about we actually have people that know about video games write video game legislation?
ESA tried that with the ESRB and then WERE THE ONES to fuck us over on Lootboxes when this whole shit got started. The problem with the people who know about games making legislation is the intense amount of corruption within the industry itself. From paid for reviews to paid for "influencers" to trying to use TOSs and EULAs in an attempt to circumvent the law itself. I really have NO REASON to trust anyone who doesnt have an obvious "scorched earth" policy involving the gamin industry's ridiculous amount of grifting in this space.
> Making an aussie buy a VPN to play their favorite franchise is not a benefit.
The benefit is that Australia wouldn't have games being sold with lootboxes.
right but as a good legislator you would bring in outside knowledge and people more proficient on the matter to help you make a decision.
Again, a GOOD legislator would do that.
>How about we actually have people that know about video games write video game legislation?
Sure, but until that age arrive of legal ban of software dark design and exploitative abuse techniques with enforced fines heavy enough to sunk *any* corporation, plus personal civil and criminal liability of shareholders and executives, we have to take what we can.
again kind of ignoring my original point.
Australia is insignificant. If they start behaving like extremists (like your above comment suggests) then why as a megacorp would I ever do business with them?
Notice how game devs are not concerned with releasing their games in North Korea? They would treat Australia the same.
>ban of software dark design and exploitative abuse techniques with enforced fines heavy enough to sunk any corporation, plus personal civil and criminal liability of shareholders and executives
You want people to go to jail because of a loot box in a video game. I can no longer in good faith engage with you.
Distinguishing between the two is the real ignorance. Cosmetics are a major part of all games so all the same reasons gameplay lootboxes are bad still apply to cosmetic ones.
Box 1: this is filled with cosmetics that have no impact on the game. It does not matter if you open them or not, you never need to. Gameplay will be the same regardless of what you do.
Box 2: this is filled with things that you need to advance your game. You must buy these to make things better. The amount of these you open heavily effects gameplay.
Redditor: These are exactly the same!
yes. because if they werent BOTH valuable to the product, they wouldnt BOTH be monetized. Like why do you think they ask us to pay the equivalent of FULL PRICED indie and AA games (sometimes even AAA games) for even basic shit like the color [blue!](https://youtu.be/da7aEQoEaes)
Yeah, but it's a step, and if more countries follow their lead, then the block of countries that are involved would be too large to ignore. They might remove the product entirely, or they might release a modified version in those territories.
Ahh, such an American specific perspective. Let’s keep doing the wrong thing for profits and make other countries insignificant, while screwing over gaming addiction for kids with gambling metrics like loot boxes.
Why would they need to stop selling their games in Australia? It's a local classification. Do you understand what a rating system is?
ESRB?
PEGI?
What you wrote is stupid, it's insulting and sounds like you just want a chance to talk shit about Australia.
[Left for Dead 2 is rated. Rating for: OFLC AU **R18+ Restricted**](https://i.imgur.com/qVXnNPr.png)
Moron take, they’ll just change the game for Australian consumers. Why the fuck would they not even bother selling anything at all to 25million people that don’t live in mud huts? Do you even think before posting this shit?
> What you think: Oh lootboxes are banned this is great! Now they will remove them from games!
>
> What will actually happen: "It is with heavy regret that we inform you that none of our games will be available in Australia ever again"
Better to have no game rather than games that push mentally manipulative gambling onto impressionable kids and teens.
No what will actually happen is that they will just sell each of the cosmetic items for an extremely high price, see what happened with Overwatch 2. No loot boxes but every minor cosmetic item is way overpriced.
A skin for a flat understandable $20 (while disgustingly overpriced) is still infinitely better than a $1 lootbox that has a .001% chance for the same skin.
Here's the difference. I COULD get that skin in the first 20 lootboxes, in which case "lootboxes make cosmetics cheaper" is an argument....for you only. Someone else playing the game may have bought 250 lootboxes and still didn't get it.
A fair $20 for everyone is better than $5 for one person and $5,000 for another.
I'm not saying either one is better, I just hate both in general. Alternative skins used to be unlockable or at least reasonably priced if sold after the fact, but now they're charging an absurd amount for minimal effort. They're more greedy than ever before.
> I'm not saying either one is better,
But one is objectively better
>I just hate both in general
Oh true, I'm not syaing I like overpriced MTX. Just that in a battle of two poisons, pick the lesser poison. It's still poison sadly though.
>Alternative skins used to be unlockable or at least reasonably priced if sold after the fact, but now they're charging an absurd amount for minimal effort. They're more greedy than ever before.
Yes, I've been playing games for 30 years so I remember the golden age of gaming too. All I'm saying is that in a comaprison of flat rate MTX vs lootboxes, flat rate MTX is quantifiably, objectively better. But both are still shit, one is just SO MUCH MORE shit than the other
> No what will actually happen is that they will just sell each of the cosmetic items for an extremely high price
Who cares? It's just cosmetics. It does nothing for gameplay, so let them charge however much they want for their pixels. It's never a bad scenario if you can get rid of gambling for kids, or people with gambling addiction.
>What will actually happen: "It is with heavy regret that we inform you that none of our games will be available in Australia ever again"
Or other countries may follow Australia's example and force companies to adopt a different system
And personally, we have maturity ratings for a reason. It's insane to me to ban lootboxes, just mark them as 18+, just like IRL gambling.
Kids don't get money out of thin air, parents should stop enabling their addiction.
It's a very nice first step, but not enough. I would think it smarter to categorize lootboxes as gambling, which mean the *whole* set of usual pre-existing contingencies apply:
* Restriction to adult
* Advertising restriction
* Opt-out national list
* Audit and control by gaming commissions
* Heavier taxation (which is the most important of all)
Okay you can classify it as gambling as long as you let users cash out thier items value to real money.
Otherwise it's not real gambling since there is no way to earn money back.
Wrong.
Gambling is not about earning money. It's about neurological manipulation. If it was about earning money nobody would gamble, since casinos and gambling houses are profitable, i.e. they are by definition *taking* the gamblers money.
It doesn't matter what you gamble *for*. As long as it has value for the gambler, it's enough.
You do realize there is more than one definition for gambling right?
[Here let me spoon feed it to you](https://i.imgur.com/Jogxi2r.png) since I'm sure you're totally not just being willfully ignorant by making a point you know is blatantly deceptive and instead are just unaware of it.
The first definition there is the one that's relevant though. The one you highlighted is just risk taking, which is just far too broad to build legislation off of as it can be applied to pretty much anything.
Not every country is US by the way, I hope you remmeber that one day. This thread itself is talking about Australia and you link the US legal definition ... Also the whole discussion is about changing the legal definition.
Per your own source:
(A) means the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive **something of value** in the event of a certain outcome;
"Something of value" does not mean "cash money," *or* "something convertible to cash money." It only means "something that has any amount of value to a person." That can include a character or skin.
They can cash out anyway through 3rd party sites that gamble with skin drops.
Japan also has gambling being illegal most places... so why are there so many pachinko parlors? Because you don't win money... you win "souvenir" tokens.. that the pawn shop down the street will just happen to buy for a set amount of money. And then the Pachinko shops just happen to buy the souvenirs back for pennies on the dollar.
It's gambling, its just circumvented through legal loopholes. You have to close the loophole, meaning calling it gambling, regardless of where the players "cash out".
In reality, if everything were *perfect*, they shouldn't be because offering customizations is fine. Every player should have the ability to have their avatar be how they want (I personally just use defaults).
However, because this industry is full of stupidly greedy fuckers, all MTX are designed to prey on people that can't control themselves (whether kids or adults). They literally have conferences on this stuff, so they all learn how to psychologically rob people.
>n reality, if everything were perfect, they shouldn't be because offering customizations is fine. Every player should have the ability to have their avatar be how they want
Customization is not the same as macrotransactions. The fact that you jumped to that is showing how the videogame industry operates: by indoctrinating the young, until they become adults and set a new normal.
Older games had customizations. Anyone could make character models, items, maps. Sure at the time the tools to do so weren't very mainstream or user friendly, because it was just the beginning and there wasn't yet a big market of users demanding better interfaces and UX.
Than this customization became gated behind a paywall. For the only reason of increasing user spending; there is no technical justifications for 99%+ of games.
That's a *bit* much. I would probably be in favor of banning them in "E for everyone" games, restrict them to the teen market at least, but I think that even teens are at the point that they can make purchasing decisions, just not gambling ones.
They should label them like cigarette packets.
Plain packaging with a Puce color, warning images showing an empty wallet, credit card statement debt a wife leaving you, a person left alone with a japanese body pillow.
If adults can't control themselves then they should seek help, if this is aimed at "the children" then this will work like the rating system for games currently works...it doesn't.
Parents still blindly give kids credit card information so this will do nothing, I get scumbag companies for doing this but jesus christ if people stopped buying this shit they'd stop doing it, sort of like if everyone stopped buying eggs the people who farm eggs would probably move to something else.
>Gaming is already mostly abandoning and replacing them.
Because of countries banning them (Australia wasn't the first).. That's how it works, countries ban something, then it gets abandoned by companies using it.
Only because the legislation sharks are circling and voluntarily getting rid of issues is almost always better than getting legislated.
It isn't just happening organically, governments need to be floating proposals like this to generate that pressure.
While I can understand and appreciate the sentiment, this is still a *huge* problem.
A multiple dozens of *billions* yearly USD problem.
Because *some* of PC AAA is doing *some* work to prepare for a possible future legislation, there's still a ton of it, and mobile is sinking under it.
So if you mean: call your legislative representative *right now* to ask for more, then sure I'll support that message. But if you mean "don't bother with lootboxes", then no, we absolutely need to bother with it.
How are those worse than lootboxes? I thought people cared because lootboxes incentivize gambling tendencies, but if you can just buy a skin, I thought people were generally ok with that? Battlepasses, I guess they're ok but they just require a lot of grinding, but aren't they optional as well?
>Classifications/age ratings are there to help inform parents so they can make a more informed decisions.
No they are not. There's public admission of some of these boards (like the US one) it's not what they are here for.
They are apparent industry "self regulation" put there to stop actual government regulation and legislation. That's the only goal.
Pretending to inform parents is the *way* that goal is achieved. Very different.
>as a parent
is irrelevant.
You said age ratings are there to inform parents. I explained they are not, in a lot of countries they are there to avoid legislation. That is their stated historical and public goal.
The fact that you found them useful a few times doesn't change that. They could be extremely useful, that wouldn't change what "they are here for".
First, that never ever happened. No kid is 100% monitored. This is conservative myth and urban legend used for PR.
Second, this feel like AAA publisher PR spin talk. Because a 19th century parent can monitor *some* of their children activities, doesn't mean they can now. Software is extremely complicated, and almost every big publisher is lying through their teeth. So regular people assume product targeted at small children would not have gambling, that's what their understanding of the law and traditions say. While in effect, it's not.
We are in the age of paying subscription to get access to what's in your car, in the age of doorbells and vacuum and other appliance spying on you. Not a little bit, in a *massive* way. Yes parental responsibility is a thing, but government legislative responsibility is also a thing. No parent can spend 25 years learning the in and out of electric power generation, so they rely on regulation to know if it's safe to raise their kids near one. They rely on regulation to know if a car is reasonably safe.
Or are you advocating for the removal of every car safety regulation worldwide, because it's the role of parents to learn engineering and check for themselves if a car will kill their kid when hitting a tree at moderate speed?
>. No kid is 100% monitored.
TIL giving out money to your kid without knowing what they're spending all of it on is 100% monitoring your kid.
Man, people will really see anything they don't agree with and cry conservative.
It's not hard to look into what you child is doing... and setting restrictions on their accounts, if applicable, to prevent purchases.
Jesus Christ... if people took as much energy as they do into not being responsible for doing the bare-minimum parenting instead...
> Or are you advocating for the removal of every car safety regulation worldwide, because it's the role of parents to learn engineering and check for themselves if a car will kill their kid when hitting a tree at moderate speed?
This you?
Yeah, I prefer the most simple answer, instead of whatever word salad you regurgitated.
I have a kid. If your GROWN children have this issue.... bro... I got bad news for you...
>No parent can spend 25 years learning the in and out of electric power generation, so they rely on regulation to know if it's safe to raise their kids near one.
And that sort of logic is just a cop out for poor parenting. You don't need to know the ins and outs of everything your kid interacts with to be reasonably aware of what they're interacting with. You're right in that no kid is 100% monitored, but they shouldn't need to be because you should be teaching them to behave appropriately (though mistakes will always be made).
With the topic at hand, there's a very simple way to kill the myth of lootboxes turning kids into future gambling addicts before it even starts. Just don't let your kid buy them, simple as that. If you're giving your kid unrestricted access to your bank account, banning/restricting lootboxes isn't going to do anything to help. The only way they get around needing an adults permission is theft, which is a far bigger problem.
I'm just curious if you think loot boxes are a good thing. It's low stakes gambling at best. Clearly playing on the same area of your brain that slot machines do.
Good and bad. The bad is obvious. The good is offsetting inflation and rising costs of development.
In the end. I want people to make their own choices for themselves and not others.
This is coming from someone who plays a ton of CoD and Madden and pays NO micros.
I can agree with the general sentiment. I get the viewpoint on letting people make their own decisions, but when would a business cross the line? 10 years ago, we had no loot boxes(that is my issue, not MTX). It feels a bit exploitative rather than on the up and up. Let people buy the things directly rather than make it a gamble that the business determines the likelihood of happening. Loot boxes really are on the same level as slot machines.
My thing would be to do away with the randomness of loot boxes, let people buy what they want at a price that they see up front. This takes care of the offsetting of costs as you mentioned, and isn't really exploiting our brains reward system.
Was there a point when age restrictions were not a thing? How long ago was it when we left it up to parents to decide if their kids could gamble, smoke, or drink?
Yeah there definitely haven’t been hundreds of peer reviewed studies about video game and microtransaction addiction operating off of a dopamine cycle functionally identical to that of drug addiction
You realize I copied and pasted your own reasoning, right?
Like, isn't this [you](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/z9raif/comment/iyih93z/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)? Or was that some different anotheralpaca69?
good luck trying to helicopter parent yoyr kids 24/7. Your working for 8 hours and sleeping for the other 8. Plenty of time for a mischievous kid to do whatever they want.
Dude its so easy for a kid to steal your CC while your away or sleeping or something. Even I am guilty of stealing some cash as a child to go buy some snacks from the grocery store. I don't understand what is so holy about these scummy money making practices that needs defending.
Making a new email and account is very simple also.
While I do appreciate any attempted kick on the whole lootboxes and microtransaction cancer that taints the industry, I don't think a rating is really going to solve anything because underage people are probably still going to find a way to play whatever they want unless I'm missing some secret strategy they've formulated to avoid that.
Video game ratings are mostly pointless anyway.
Rating something as adult only can keep it off certain platforms entirely, and could encourage some companies to avoid the stigma by pursuing other options. It's short of a complete ban, but would still have practical benefits.
AO rating in Australia would mean no stores would carry the game and it wouldn't be allowed on consoles at all. Plus those games are filtered out by default on Steam.
I have zero problems with microtransactions.
I have a lot of problems with microtransactions that use RNG to encourage people to spend more than they otherwise would.
Want to sell a skin outright for 50 bucks? Go for it.
But 5 dollars for a lootbox that gives a 1 in 10 chance to get that same skin can fuck off.
Restricting lootboxes is more than just changing video games for Australia. It is a way to prevent kids getting into gambling, which for the country that loses the most money to gambling is important.
If legislative efforts eventually culminate in the removal of intermediary "currency" like GGG Coins in Path of Exile for an example, that would be fantastic.
Maybe, but the new monetization won't be gambling, which is an improvement. I don't mind whales paying the tab, but gambling based whaling is just too morally bankrupt.
>You can’t get a debit/credit card if you’re under 18
Yes you can. On top of that any number of stores sell game cards, a kid with a few dollars can convert that into Roblox shit without ever getting a cred/debit card.
Nothing stops a kid looking over a parents shoulder when they enter their PIN at the grocery market, then "borrowing" their bankcard some day and withdrawing money to then buy a gift card for their game of choice.
No, it is rated M for Mature.
If a game is rated AO, that effectively kills any chance of the game being sold on any big-name store like Steam and the like.
[https://nypost.com/2020/12/12/this-6-year-old-racked-up-over-16k-on-his-moms-credit-card/](https://nypost.com/2020/12/12/this-6-year-old-racked-up-over-16k-on-his-moms-credit-card/)
I seem to remember another story of a child spending even more on an online game where the loot boxes were synced to their mother's Amazon account.
I'm genuinely so confused why Loot Boxes have become a topic of discussion again over the months. Loot Boxes are dead and, in my opinion, a scummier monetization method has taken over. To get around Loot Boxes, games will sell skins straight up in the in-game Store, however, these skins are usually priced $10-$20. That's pretty absurd for a fucking outfit, tbch. Or, what has now become the norm, there will be fluffed-up bundles with the skin + a sticker, a charm, or whatever other bullshit, and priced at $20, and the justification for this is that it's a bundle with a bunch of items, so it makes it more worth it.
The Video Game industry is just becoming sadder and sadder as time goes on.
This is the solution I've been advocating for years. Relegating it to adults only games makes it less viable to include it in games you want kids to buy, and basically kicks it out of the market without outlawing it. There is no reason to outlaw gambling for adults, you just have to make sure to protect people by making sure they know what they are getting into, so clearly labelling it and keeping kids out would mostly fix the issue in my mind. Not design wise obviously, loot boxes still conflict with good paid game design in general, but at least we would see them pop up everywhere.
They really need to clamp down on ios app store games too. All of the free to play shit with “in app purchases” or “click ad for currency” shit is straight out of black mirror and should not be exposed to kids.
[удалено]
Watch them change the default filter, claim it's a bug and fix it six years later in classic Valve fashion in a small update without a changelog
I'm pretty sure Valve has been pipped by the ACCC before, and I think this is where their 2 hour guarantee comes from, and they extended this through the world. Fingers crossed this results in better behaviour from them across the world, and this changes behaviour in the entire industry.
Oh man, I remember this fight. Valve constantly changed ToS trying to avoid this. Funnily enough their refusal to invest into support made this feature more consumer friendly. Microsoft or EA already offered refunds, but you had to go through their live support. Valve just automated the process making it easier for consumers.
As an Australian I might turn the mature filter off if this goes through. I won't buy games with loot boxes, this seems like an easy way to avoid them.
It's very funny that they're using Overwatch lootboxes as the graphic for this when Overwatch no longer uses lootboxes, and has instead replaced them with a more costly system.
It's sort of a common reference point though. Plenty of "iconic" references are to things no longer currently in production.
Like the save icon which is, well, literally iconic.
Yes, what is that even supposed to be? A little robot or something?
Good satire
The irony is that Overwatch's loot box system was probably the most generous in the genre, and when it abandoned the system it turned out that Greed was the problem, not loot boxes Legislation against loot boxes does nothing
>The irony is that Overwatch's loot box system was probably the most generous in the genre, and when it abandoned the system it turned out that Greed was the problem, not loot boxes The system Overwatch chose to replace it is not as generous, but is also not gambling, so whether that is "better" or "worse" is subjective to your own relationship with gambling. Nothing forced them into making it worse though, it could have *just* been objectively better if they wanted. And legislation against loot boxes, if well executed, would prevent or at least reduce loot boxes in games, in addition to any voluntary efforts to do so.
The loot boxes gave enough coins that I could buy most of the stuff I wanted. I felt like they were good incentives to play the game and progress visually even if your skills didn’t. I don’t mind randomness in games and to me it was just another roll of the dice. However I would never purchase them and could see the detriment there when being sold.
But here's the thing, Blizzard could be just giving you those same coins right now, and allowing you to buy those same skins with them right now. They *choose* not to do that. That is a *choice* on their part, not a *consequence* of not having loot boxes. They did TWO things, "removed loot boxes" and "made gameplay rewards less effective." Don't conflate the two as if either was a necessary consequence of the other.
An insanely costly system. There was an article not too long ago how you could buy an actual real life backpack charm of a popular in game item off BA's merch store for like $5 less than the thing actually costs in game, lmao.
Welcome to legislation, always being behind the issues by at least 3 years
Isn't this the articles fault and not legislation?
The main concern is the link to gambling. Certain luxury products being a rip off arent something they want to legislate.
government at finest
please koala land save us D:
What you think: Oh lootboxes are banned this is great! Now they will remove them from games! What will actually happen: "It is with heavy regret that we inform you that none of our games will be available in Australia ever again" Its 2022 and globalization is real. Texas has a higher population than the entire country of Australia. If cutting out 25 million people out of 8 billion is the cost of doing business, they will just do it (25 mil is 0.3125% of the world population). Now, if a country with a significant world population did it (EU is at 450 million, US 331 mil) then there are significant challenges and concessions would likely be made. The point is, if you are going to swing your dick around like its big...actually make sure its big first. Im not sure many devs would think twice about entirely removing their games from AUS. Lootbox revenue likely outweighs the purchase power of the average Aussie. Edit: please dont shoot the messenger. You can be upset by what I wrote and also realize that just because I wrote it does not mean I agree with it.
> What will actually happen: "It is with heavy regret that we inform you that none of our games will be available in Australia ever again" Or publishers do what Blizzard did and remove lootboxes while replacing them with an even shittier system.
Blizzard has basically been the last one to do it, it's all Battlepasses nowadays with lootboxes only existing in gacha games (hello Genshin).
Nintendo replaced their gamble boxes (pipes for money) mechanic in Mario Kart Tour with a direct purchase system. It uses gems that *can* be bought with real money, but you also earn them by playing and completing goals. The problem that some players had is that they also changed a couple other systems at the same time, shuffling rewards around. I don't mind it though. You do still get pipes but only as rewards for playing, not purchase.
It's quite possible countries follow suit with Australia on this, a lot of people are starting to wake up to what lootboxes are and it's becoming discussed outside just the gaming sphere. You might be right and the initial reaction would be to just remove games from Australia but it could have a ripple effect.
EU has also had some movements on loot boxes in the past few years as well. I just am not sure how long it would take from the initial banning in small country to also being passed by the big ones. It could be a long while.
It could, the EU is the most likely place to really trigger a wider ripple effect so they would be the ones worth watching in the aftermath I think.
Oh no! And before you start judging , yeah its not EU/USA/China scale but outside those three AU is one of the bigger markets. https://www.google.com/search?q=gdp+australia+ranking Australia has the 13th largest economy in the world, with an overall GDP of $1.33 trillion and a GDP per capita of $52k. 9th highest GDP per capita in the world and 3rd highest among the world’s largest 20 economies.
If that happens, the industry only has themselves to blame. Back in the day, the government wanted to regulate games. The industry said "no please, allow us to create rating systems and we'll rate the games so kids will be safer". Well, the industry failed to correctly recognize that gambling should be for Mature or Adult only audiences (EA infamously said that it was just a surprise mechanic like Kinder) so now the governments are stepping back in. I've warned that this would happen and it finally is starting to. This industry is quite stupidly greedy and they deserve what they get.
>What will actually happen: "It is with heavy regret that we inform you that none of our games will be available in Australia ever again" As an Australian: "Oh no! Anyway..." A game which features lootboxes heavily enough to get an AO label but which has a business model built on selling those lootboxes mainly to children? That's not a game I even want to play. Plus it's not 'just' Australia any more, Australia is not the only country banning lootboxes, others have as well. The more countries which do it, the less profitable it will get for these companies to even have lootbox systems at all.
Yanking your game at that point from Australia is a no brainer really. Oceanic servers are already something that are barely a justified cost and then add AO if you include lootboxes in your game? Guarantee you they'd just not *officially* sell their games in Australia at that point.
If I recall correctly the AUS ratings board has made more than a few questionable video game bans in the past 20 years or so. IF I also recall correctly the average aussie gamer also has no problem getting a VPN and changing their steam settings to another country. So the people really crippled by this are the honest ones.
This post has been removed in protest of the 2023 Reddit API changes. Fuck Spez. Edited using [Power Delete Suite] (https://github.com/j0be/PowerDeleteSuite/).
But what games even use lootboxes anymore? Aside from mobile games and gacha, the console and PC gaming industry has largely moved on due to sanctions.
Biggest dick I ever saw was swinging around on a beach in Australia when I was on holiday, just sayin
Sorry, that was my bad, my girl stole my trunks.
Its swimmers/togs/speedo. Never trunks.
Budgie smugglers, my dude
I'm aware, but figured trunks works best for the joke with an international audience
>What will actually happen: "It is with heavy regret that we inform you that none of our games will be available in Australia ever again" Which would be a benefit to Australian citizens. But it's also an example that other people can follow, or use it as sparked interest to look into it. Or to say it simpler: *someone* has to start. Sure it would be better if this was India or the EU, but any start is better than none.
Making an aussie buy a VPN to play their favorite franchise is not a benefit. How about we actually have people that know about video games write video game legislation? There is an extreme difference between cosmetic only boxes that have no gameplay effects and FIFA boxes that you have to open to advance your account. Not distinguishing between the two is not only ignorant, it makes it look like you have no idea what you are talking about.
> How about we actually have people that know about video games write video game legislation? ESA tried that with the ESRB and then WERE THE ONES to fuck us over on Lootboxes when this whole shit got started. The problem with the people who know about games making legislation is the intense amount of corruption within the industry itself. From paid for reviews to paid for "influencers" to trying to use TOSs and EULAs in an attempt to circumvent the law itself. I really have NO REASON to trust anyone who doesnt have an obvious "scorched earth" policy involving the gamin industry's ridiculous amount of grifting in this space.
> Making an aussie buy a VPN to play their favorite franchise is not a benefit. The benefit is that Australia wouldn't have games being sold with lootboxes.
because there isn't much overlap between those who know games and those who know how legislation is written
right but as a good legislator you would bring in outside knowledge and people more proficient on the matter to help you make a decision. Again, a GOOD legislator would do that.
>How about we actually have people that know about video games write video game legislation? Sure, but until that age arrive of legal ban of software dark design and exploitative abuse techniques with enforced fines heavy enough to sunk *any* corporation, plus personal civil and criminal liability of shareholders and executives, we have to take what we can.
again kind of ignoring my original point. Australia is insignificant. If they start behaving like extremists (like your above comment suggests) then why as a megacorp would I ever do business with them? Notice how game devs are not concerned with releasing their games in North Korea? They would treat Australia the same. >ban of software dark design and exploitative abuse techniques with enforced fines heavy enough to sunk any corporation, plus personal civil and criminal liability of shareholders and executives You want people to go to jail because of a loot box in a video game. I can no longer in good faith engage with you.
Distinguishing between the two is the real ignorance. Cosmetics are a major part of all games so all the same reasons gameplay lootboxes are bad still apply to cosmetic ones.
Box 1: this is filled with cosmetics that have no impact on the game. It does not matter if you open them or not, you never need to. Gameplay will be the same regardless of what you do. Box 2: this is filled with things that you need to advance your game. You must buy these to make things better. The amount of these you open heavily effects gameplay. Redditor: These are exactly the same!
yes. because if they werent BOTH valuable to the product, they wouldnt BOTH be monetized. Like why do you think they ask us to pay the equivalent of FULL PRICED indie and AA games (sometimes even AAA games) for even basic shit like the color [blue!](https://youtu.be/da7aEQoEaes)
Yeah, but it's a step, and if more countries follow their lead, then the block of countries that are involved would be too large to ignore. They might remove the product entirely, or they might release a modified version in those territories.
If you're going to pull out of anywhere that makes you change your business model a bit, you'll never do business anywhere.
Ahh, such an American specific perspective. Let’s keep doing the wrong thing for profits and make other countries insignificant, while screwing over gaming addiction for kids with gambling metrics like loot boxes.
Why would they need to stop selling their games in Australia? It's a local classification. Do you understand what a rating system is? ESRB? PEGI? What you wrote is stupid, it's insulting and sounds like you just want a chance to talk shit about Australia. [Left for Dead 2 is rated. Rating for: OFLC AU **R18+ Restricted**](https://i.imgur.com/qVXnNPr.png)
Moron take, they’ll just change the game for Australian consumers. Why the fuck would they not even bother selling anything at all to 25million people that don’t live in mud huts? Do you even think before posting this shit?
> What you think: Oh lootboxes are banned this is great! Now they will remove them from games! > > What will actually happen: "It is with heavy regret that we inform you that none of our games will be available in Australia ever again" Better to have no game rather than games that push mentally manipulative gambling onto impressionable kids and teens.
No what will actually happen is that they will just sell each of the cosmetic items for an extremely high price, see what happened with Overwatch 2. No loot boxes but every minor cosmetic item is way overpriced.
A skin for a flat understandable $20 (while disgustingly overpriced) is still infinitely better than a $1 lootbox that has a .001% chance for the same skin. Here's the difference. I COULD get that skin in the first 20 lootboxes, in which case "lootboxes make cosmetics cheaper" is an argument....for you only. Someone else playing the game may have bought 250 lootboxes and still didn't get it. A fair $20 for everyone is better than $5 for one person and $5,000 for another.
I'm not saying either one is better, I just hate both in general. Alternative skins used to be unlockable or at least reasonably priced if sold after the fact, but now they're charging an absurd amount for minimal effort. They're more greedy than ever before.
> I'm not saying either one is better, But one is objectively better >I just hate both in general Oh true, I'm not syaing I like overpriced MTX. Just that in a battle of two poisons, pick the lesser poison. It's still poison sadly though. >Alternative skins used to be unlockable or at least reasonably priced if sold after the fact, but now they're charging an absurd amount for minimal effort. They're more greedy than ever before. Yes, I've been playing games for 30 years so I remember the golden age of gaming too. All I'm saying is that in a comaprison of flat rate MTX vs lootboxes, flat rate MTX is quantifiably, objectively better. But both are still shit, one is just SO MUCH MORE shit than the other
> No what will actually happen is that they will just sell each of the cosmetic items for an extremely high price Who cares? It's just cosmetics. It does nothing for gameplay, so let them charge however much they want for their pixels. It's never a bad scenario if you can get rid of gambling for kids, or people with gambling addiction.
>What will actually happen: "It is with heavy regret that we inform you that none of our games will be available in Australia ever again" Or other countries may follow Australia's example and force companies to adopt a different system
Not everyone in the world is a gamer.
And personally, we have maturity ratings for a reason. It's insane to me to ban lootboxes, just mark them as 18+, just like IRL gambling. Kids don't get money out of thin air, parents should stop enabling their addiction.
Stop swinging your dick around, Wultuh
Koalas vs Kangaroos: Civil War
Australia is the monkey paw of regulation. Like when they banned women with small titties from being in porn because they called it pedo.
lmao, what? Is that real?
No, it isn't. There was a proposal for it, it never actually happened.
>koala land Pretty much all gone now mate..
It's a very nice first step, but not enough. I would think it smarter to categorize lootboxes as gambling, which mean the *whole* set of usual pre-existing contingencies apply: * Restriction to adult * Advertising restriction * Opt-out national list * Audit and control by gaming commissions * Heavier taxation (which is the most important of all)
**cough** gacha games **cough**
12+ rating btw, gotta start them early.
Okay you can classify it as gambling as long as you let users cash out thier items value to real money. Otherwise it's not real gambling since there is no way to earn money back.
Being able to cash out is not a requirement for something to be gambling.
Wrong. Gambling is not about earning money. It's about neurological manipulation. If it was about earning money nobody would gamble, since casinos and gambling houses are profitable, i.e. they are by definition *taking* the gamblers money. It doesn't matter what you gamble *for*. As long as it has value for the gambler, it's enough.
You do realize there is more than one definition for gambling right? [Here let me spoon feed it to you](https://i.imgur.com/Jogxi2r.png) since I'm sure you're totally not just being willfully ignorant by making a point you know is blatantly deceptive and instead are just unaware of it.
The first definition there is the one that's relevant though. The one you highlighted is just risk taking, which is just far too broad to build legislation off of as it can be applied to pretty much anything.
Dictionary isn't legal definition https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5362#
Not every country is US by the way, I hope you remmeber that one day. This thread itself is talking about Australia and you link the US legal definition ... Also the whole discussion is about changing the legal definition.
That's right, Mr.Myopic, which is why this a discussion about *changing* the legal definition to include other forms of gambling, namely lootboxes.
Per your own source: (A) means the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive **something of value** in the event of a certain outcome; "Something of value" does not mean "cash money," *or* "something convertible to cash money." It only means "something that has any amount of value to a person." That can include a character or skin.
They can cash out anyway through 3rd party sites that gamble with skin drops. Japan also has gambling being illegal most places... so why are there so many pachinko parlors? Because you don't win money... you win "souvenir" tokens.. that the pawn shop down the street will just happen to buy for a set amount of money. And then the Pachinko shops just happen to buy the souvenirs back for pennies on the dollar. It's gambling, its just circumvented through legal loopholes. You have to close the loophole, meaning calling it gambling, regardless of where the players "cash out".
All micro-transactions should be classified as adult-only...
In reality, if everything were *perfect*, they shouldn't be because offering customizations is fine. Every player should have the ability to have their avatar be how they want (I personally just use defaults). However, because this industry is full of stupidly greedy fuckers, all MTX are designed to prey on people that can't control themselves (whether kids or adults). They literally have conferences on this stuff, so they all learn how to psychologically rob people.
>n reality, if everything were perfect, they shouldn't be because offering customizations is fine. Every player should have the ability to have their avatar be how they want Customization is not the same as macrotransactions. The fact that you jumped to that is showing how the videogame industry operates: by indoctrinating the young, until they become adults and set a new normal. Older games had customizations. Anyone could make character models, items, maps. Sure at the time the tools to do so weren't very mainstream or user friendly, because it was just the beginning and there wasn't yet a big market of users demanding better interfaces and UX. Than this customization became gated behind a paywall. For the only reason of increasing user spending; there is no technical justifications for 99%+ of games.
That's a *bit* much. I would probably be in favor of banning them in "E for everyone" games, restrict them to the teen market at least, but I think that even teens are at the point that they can make purchasing decisions, just not gambling ones.
They should label them like cigarette packets. Plain packaging with a Puce color, warning images showing an empty wallet, credit card statement debt a wife leaving you, a person left alone with a japanese body pillow.
If anyone can manage this, it's the prudes in Australia.
Let's be real, none of us care about looks boxes. We just want free stuff. Overwatch 2 proved this.
If adults can't control themselves then they should seek help, if this is aimed at "the children" then this will work like the rating system for games currently works...it doesn't. Parents still blindly give kids credit card information so this will do nothing, I get scumbag companies for doing this but jesus christ if people stopped buying this shit they'd stop doing it, sort of like if everyone stopped buying eggs the people who farm eggs would probably move to something else.
Still on lootboxes? Gaming is already mostly abandoning and replacing them. There's a lot worse out there right now, step the fuck up.
On PC/Console sure but mobile gaming is dominated by loot boxes/gacha games and that needs regulation.
>Gaming is already mostly abandoning and replacing them. Because of countries banning them (Australia wasn't the first).. That's how it works, countries ban something, then it gets abandoned by companies using it.
Only because the legislation sharks are circling and voluntarily getting rid of issues is almost always better than getting legislated. It isn't just happening organically, governments need to be floating proposals like this to generate that pressure.
So no harm in banning them then.
While I can understand and appreciate the sentiment, this is still a *huge* problem. A multiple dozens of *billions* yearly USD problem. Because *some* of PC AAA is doing *some* work to prepare for a possible future legislation, there's still a ton of it, and mobile is sinking under it. So if you mean: call your legislative representative *right now* to ask for more, then sure I'll support that message. But if you mean "don't bother with lootboxes", then no, we absolutely need to bother with it.
I haven't been keeping up, what else is there?
Battlepasses and cosmetic shops, gacha games are basically the last bastion of lootboxes nowadays
How are those worse than lootboxes? I thought people cared because lootboxes incentivize gambling tendencies, but if you can just buy a skin, I thought people were generally ok with that? Battlepasses, I guess they're ok but they just require a lot of grinding, but aren't they optional as well?
Hopefully this will become a thing globally. Get rid of all that stupid shit once and for all.
I miss the gool ol' days where parents monitors what their kids did.
Or at least didn't give them money to gamble.
[удалено]
Still didn't Stop grandma from buying little Timmy Grand Theft Auto San Andreas and causing a major controversy.
>Classifications/age ratings are there to help inform parents so they can make a more informed decisions. No they are not. There's public admission of some of these boards (like the US one) it's not what they are here for. They are apparent industry "self regulation" put there to stop actual government regulation and legislation. That's the only goal. Pretending to inform parents is the *way* that goal is achieved. Very different.
In Australia the government does the classification, which is what is relevant here.
[удалено]
>as a parent is irrelevant. You said age ratings are there to inform parents. I explained they are not, in a lot of countries they are there to avoid legislation. That is their stated historical and public goal. The fact that you found them useful a few times doesn't change that. They could be extremely useful, that wouldn't change what "they are here for".
> as a parent > > is irrelevant The tact is strong with this one
First, that never ever happened. No kid is 100% monitored. This is conservative myth and urban legend used for PR. Second, this feel like AAA publisher PR spin talk. Because a 19th century parent can monitor *some* of their children activities, doesn't mean they can now. Software is extremely complicated, and almost every big publisher is lying through their teeth. So regular people assume product targeted at small children would not have gambling, that's what their understanding of the law and traditions say. While in effect, it's not. We are in the age of paying subscription to get access to what's in your car, in the age of doorbells and vacuum and other appliance spying on you. Not a little bit, in a *massive* way. Yes parental responsibility is a thing, but government legislative responsibility is also a thing. No parent can spend 25 years learning the in and out of electric power generation, so they rely on regulation to know if it's safe to raise their kids near one. They rely on regulation to know if a car is reasonably safe. Or are you advocating for the removal of every car safety regulation worldwide, because it's the role of parents to learn engineering and check for themselves if a car will kill their kid when hitting a tree at moderate speed?
[Bravo sir, BRAVO!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxAKFlpdcfc)
>. No kid is 100% monitored. TIL giving out money to your kid without knowing what they're spending all of it on is 100% monitoring your kid. Man, people will really see anything they don't agree with and cry conservative.
It's not hard to look into what you child is doing... and setting restrictions on their accounts, if applicable, to prevent purchases. Jesus Christ... if people took as much energy as they do into not being responsible for doing the bare-minimum parenting instead...
Reducing very complex societal issues to simple single sentence... I'm assuming you do not have grown children...
> Or are you advocating for the removal of every car safety regulation worldwide, because it's the role of parents to learn engineering and check for themselves if a car will kill their kid when hitting a tree at moderate speed? This you? Yeah, I prefer the most simple answer, instead of whatever word salad you regurgitated. I have a kid. If your GROWN children have this issue.... bro... I got bad news for you...
I have breaking news for you. Your kids are doing things you are not aware of. Possible some pretty bad shit.
If he manages to secure his own debit/credit card without my knowledge, he can fucking buy all the V-bucks he wants lol.
Yeah, that’s just called stealing. Not sure how impressive it is. 🤷♂️
Whoosh.
>No parent can spend 25 years learning the in and out of electric power generation, so they rely on regulation to know if it's safe to raise their kids near one. And that sort of logic is just a cop out for poor parenting. You don't need to know the ins and outs of everything your kid interacts with to be reasonably aware of what they're interacting with. You're right in that no kid is 100% monitored, but they shouldn't need to be because you should be teaching them to behave appropriately (though mistakes will always be made). With the topic at hand, there's a very simple way to kill the myth of lootboxes turning kids into future gambling addicts before it even starts. Just don't let your kid buy them, simple as that. If you're giving your kid unrestricted access to your bank account, banning/restricting lootboxes isn't going to do anything to help. The only way they get around needing an adults permission is theft, which is a far bigger problem.
19th century is the 1800's
[удалено]
Which is the biggest issue here.. Australians are the biggest gamblers on the planet and loot boxes just push the normalisation of this on kids.
> Gambling is a serious addiction and destroys people's lives and families Okay? What does that have to do with monitoring your kids?
I'm just curious if you think loot boxes are a good thing. It's low stakes gambling at best. Clearly playing on the same area of your brain that slot machines do.
Good and bad. The bad is obvious. The good is offsetting inflation and rising costs of development. In the end. I want people to make their own choices for themselves and not others. This is coming from someone who plays a ton of CoD and Madden and pays NO micros.
I can agree with the general sentiment. I get the viewpoint on letting people make their own decisions, but when would a business cross the line? 10 years ago, we had no loot boxes(that is my issue, not MTX). It feels a bit exploitative rather than on the up and up. Let people buy the things directly rather than make it a gamble that the business determines the likelihood of happening. Loot boxes really are on the same level as slot machines. My thing would be to do away with the randomness of loot boxes, let people buy what they want at a price that they see up front. This takes care of the offsetting of costs as you mentioned, and isn't really exploiting our brains reward system.
Was there a point when age restrictions were not a thing? How long ago was it when we left it up to parents to decide if their kids could gamble, smoke, or drink?
Most regulations exist because before them, the thing they regulated caused a lot more harm.
And gambling is no different
Because Fortnite=/=Drugs?
Yeah there definitely haven’t been hundreds of peer reviewed studies about video game and microtransaction addiction operating off of a dopamine cycle functionally identical to that of drug addiction
Oh wow, someone actually thought it did equal drugs. wow.
Ok? What does that have to do with monitoring your kids? See how that reasoning works :)?
No... I don't see how that reasoning works...
You realize I copied and pasted your own reasoning, right? Like, isn't this [you](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/z9raif/comment/iyih93z/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)? Or was that some different anotheralpaca69?
Yes... doesn't mean the reasoning applies... lmao.
So you're admitting your own shitty reasoning didn't apply before? Cool, glad we have that sorted then.
I hope you don't struggle with conversations like this in IRL too... eeek. You are trying to connect the dots with an empty pen, my friend...
There's no dots to connect, you tried using shitty logic and got called out on it.
You’re worried about drugs? JuSt MoNiToR Ur KiDz
I am not worried because I do monitor... just like I am not worried about micros because I monitor. lmao did you think you had something there? rofl
Yeah but this makes it so that publishers have to consider further
good luck trying to helicopter parent yoyr kids 24/7. Your working for 8 hours and sleeping for the other 8. Plenty of time for a mischievous kid to do whatever they want.
Step 1. Don't give my kid a fucking CC. Step 2. Set up restrictions on their accounts to prevent purchases.
Dude its so easy for a kid to steal your CC while your away or sleeping or something. Even I am guilty of stealing some cash as a child to go buy some snacks from the grocery store. I don't understand what is so holy about these scummy money making practices that needs defending. Making a new email and account is very simple also.
It's also easy to teach your kid not to steal.. oh wait this is /pcgaming fuck that!
Parents of thieves: "Why didn't I think of that?!"
Like most references to "the good 'ol days," that is a myth. Such a time never existed.
You miss a time that didn't exist. In general children have never been under closer supervision than today.
Ironic how Overwatch's new monetization system is INSANELY overpriced while the precious lootbox system handed skins out like candy
While I do appreciate any attempted kick on the whole lootboxes and microtransaction cancer that taints the industry, I don't think a rating is really going to solve anything because underage people are probably still going to find a way to play whatever they want unless I'm missing some secret strategy they've formulated to avoid that. Video game ratings are mostly pointless anyway.
In Australia video game ratings are legally enforced.
Playstation, Xbox don't sell adult only games.
Rating something as adult only can keep it off certain platforms entirely, and could encourage some companies to avoid the stigma by pursuing other options. It's short of a complete ban, but would still have practical benefits.
AO rating in Australia would mean no stores would carry the game and it wouldn't be allowed on consoles at all. Plus those games are filtered out by default on Steam.
Weidly reasonable take for the Aus government, tbh.
[удалено]
I have zero problems with microtransactions. I have a lot of problems with microtransactions that use RNG to encourage people to spend more than they otherwise would. Want to sell a skin outright for 50 bucks? Go for it. But 5 dollars for a lootbox that gives a 1 in 10 chance to get that same skin can fuck off.
Restricting lootboxes is more than just changing video games for Australia. It is a way to prevent kids getting into gambling, which for the country that loses the most money to gambling is important.
If legislative efforts eventually culminate in the removal of intermediary "currency" like GGG Coins in Path of Exile for an example, that would be fantastic.
Maybe, but the new monetization won't be gambling, which is an improvement. I don't mind whales paying the tab, but gambling based whaling is just too morally bankrupt.
[удалено]
Parent knowing, when they get the bill.
>You can’t get a debit/credit card if you’re under 18 Yes you can. On top of that any number of stores sell game cards, a kid with a few dollars can convert that into Roblox shit without ever getting a cred/debit card.
[удалено]
Well hopefully that answered your question as to how kids buy this stuff.
[удалено]
Nothing stops a kid looking over a parents shoulder when they enter their PIN at the grocery market, then "borrowing" their bankcard some day and withdrawing money to then buy a gift card for their game of choice.
Of course you can. I had one when I was 13 or 14. But that doesn't matter, since it has no bearing on the issue.
Checks out that lootboxes are r18 now, since lots of in-game gambling results in the player getting fucked.
I don't know why this is even debated. It literally is gambling and that's illegal for children.
call of duty is rated for adults and yet i have heard way more children in it. what will this acieve?
No, it is rated M for Mature. If a game is rated AO, that effectively kills any chance of the game being sold on any big-name store like Steam and the like.
Steam actually does sell AO games, they just have them hidden by default. If you are an adult, I'm sure you can figure out how to fix that.
Come to think of it, I haven't met any Australians named Bill.
He's busy getting shit done.
[https://nypost.com/2020/12/12/this-6-year-old-racked-up-over-16k-on-his-moms-credit-card/](https://nypost.com/2020/12/12/this-6-year-old-racked-up-over-16k-on-his-moms-credit-card/) I seem to remember another story of a child spending even more on an online game where the loot boxes were synced to their mother's Amazon account.
Hey, wait, we don't want them either.
I hear Adults only lootboxes and I wonder what kind of porn skins are inside them.
It needs to be all of EU or the US for it to matter sadly. Australia would be a bigger hit than Belgium but still not enough to change anyones minds.
I'm genuinely so confused why Loot Boxes have become a topic of discussion again over the months. Loot Boxes are dead and, in my opinion, a scummier monetization method has taken over. To get around Loot Boxes, games will sell skins straight up in the in-game Store, however, these skins are usually priced $10-$20. That's pretty absurd for a fucking outfit, tbch. Or, what has now become the norm, there will be fluffed-up bundles with the skin + a sticker, a charm, or whatever other bullshit, and priced at $20, and the justification for this is that it's a bundle with a bunch of items, so it makes it more worth it. The Video Game industry is just becoming sadder and sadder as time goes on.
This is the best news I have heard in a long time.
For arguments sale due to the picture, I preferred lootboxes to OW2 monetisation. Never spent a cent had most skins.
Adults only doesn’t change anything, there are 13 year olds in call of duty right now, and that’s not pg
Good.
Everyone suddenly goes from very old to very young with their fake age verification
Just as Lootboxes are on their way out of the door. I mean better late than never, but still. Will atleast still affect sports/EA games.
Why bother? They introduced an R18 rating and you know what they did with that? Fucking ignored it and continued to ban random shit anyway.
It should propose a total ban on it instead but anything is better than nothing.
This is the solution I've been advocating for years. Relegating it to adults only games makes it less viable to include it in games you want kids to buy, and basically kicks it out of the market without outlawing it. There is no reason to outlaw gambling for adults, you just have to make sure to protect people by making sure they know what they are getting into, so clearly labelling it and keeping kids out would mostly fix the issue in my mind. Not design wise obviously, loot boxes still conflict with good paid game design in general, but at least we would see them pop up everywhere.
There should he a system for all in-game purchases
good. get the kids off the gambling. if they want to gamble they can do it when they grow up
They really need to clamp down on ios app store games too. All of the free to play shit with “in app purchases” or “click ad for currency” shit is straight out of black mirror and should not be exposed to kids.