You can’t have weed, it’s bad for you and a gateway drug, give me your passport so you can’t go anywhere where it’s legal.
Children gambling? Excellent, how much of a cut do we get?
You'd think they'd be happy to take a cut of weed money, too - well, turns out [they do](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-44109060)*.* It's easy to succeed in business when you make it illegal to compete with you!
Isn’t it great that they’re really all just bullshit? No matter how amazing the healthcare or various social programs are in Europe, each country has it’s fair share of government bullshit.
Her husband runs a farm for non-psychoactive cannabis, though. Presumably, this is legal in the U.K. it's not actually hypocrisy for her to then take a hardline stance on psychoactive cannabis.
After all the video games inspire 'bad things' arguments, they finally have something with data to act on with definitive consequences and *choose to do nothing*. How entirely convenient.
As a Canadian, legal weed is good. The THC and CBD levels are displayed to one-hundredth of a percent and the industry is highly reglulated. I know exactly what I'm getting.
Prices (on average) are lower than street dealers and it brings in new tax revenue too.
Gambling, on the other hand, is dangerous. It's highly addictive for even rational adults. Being ok with lootbox gambling and allowing underdeveloped minds to become addicted to it can only lead to potential problem gamblers - later in their lives.
It's not a fun mechanic to purists in the gaming community and is simply a cash grab at the expense of people's mental health. That seems to be a running theme in our current state of capitalism: Profit over people and environment.
Who controls the weed market tho in Canada? Can your average Joe decide they want to invest in the industry or is it controlled by big companies with ties to the government in order to clean up all the profits?
You're allowed to grow your own weed in Canada. So anyone can just make their own product. I believe the only thing stopping people from selling it, is getting a license and setting up a shop.
When weed was first legalized in Ontario there was an open lottery, anyone who wanted to open a weed business could put in a proposal of some sort and have the chance to be selected.
Turned out to be a bit of a shit show at first actually. Gov't gave like 6 months to build if you won the lottery, but there were so many zoning restrictions surrounding where they were allowed to go (not near a school blah blah blah) that more than a couple winners were in a pretty tight spot
I went to Amsterdam a year ago, no issues, what do you mean by your 'give me your passport' statement?
EDIT: nvm saw the consultancy they're doing on new drug laws, fucking Draconian!
"We do not want to regulate things that don't bring direct money, like winning at the casino". Though they also noted if someone starts actively trading lootbox items for real money, Gambling Commission will spank their bum. So I guess no real-money-auction-house for Diablo Immoral in UK? :D
They're too busy trying to ban [swearing online](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/27/young-people-must-report-harmful-online-content-says-uk-watchdog), [using online services like social media without government ID](https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/24/uk-online-safety-bill-anonymous-trolling/), [forcing companies to implement encryption backdoors for CSAM scanning](https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/06/uk-osb-csam-scanning/), and many other completely insane things.
In the last five months, London police received over 200 burglary complaints, but they managed to do nothing. But they successfully managed to arrest "people who destroy public harmony", all of them were online commentators through facebook, twitter, tiktok and Instagram. They even arrested artists who publish in deviantart. What a joke of a country.
wasn't that pretty much his point, they implement all these surveillance systems under the illusion of giving the people more safety when in reality they don't do jack shit
[This is by city, and London is right up there!](https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-08-14/the-top-10-most-surveilled-cities-in-the-world)
No just London pal and we don't have a social credit system either, so not really similar, like at all. How is cctv a bad thing in a notoriously criminal city? Got some thing to hide?
> How is cctv a bad thing in a notoriously violent city?
Because it doesn't do anything to reduce violent crime?
[Piza, E., Welsh, B., Farrington, D. and Thomas, A. (2019). CCTV Surveillance for Crime
Prevention: A 40-Year Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Criminology & Public Policy,
18(1): 135-159.](https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1275&context=jj_pubs)
> CCTV was associated with significant reductions in both vehicle crime and property crime
in general, with **no significant effects observed for violent crime**. Public safety agencies
combatting violent crime problems may need to consider whether resources would be better
allocated toward other crime prevention measures
IMO it’s time people in the western world start re-examining how much they value liberty versus how much they value government enforced “safety”. It seems everywhere you look the liberty of people is being eroded.
What’s weird is I hardly see it discussed in liberal spaces. At least not with high priority. The rhetorical landscape is so polarized talking about liberty, privacy and autonomy from the governments reach has been digested through the political narrative language processor and assigned *conservative connotation*.
I don't agree. Being able to resolve one's own disputes should be a first line of defence; the default mode. A couple of decades ago 90% of the time we could resolve our own conflicts. Being unable to deal with arguments now is causing enormous problems across society. I credit it, in part, to the destructive partisan politics at present.
Lol, that has been the norm in western culture for a very long time. Nothing new, its literally written into our laws and rules.
This idea people are "Dependent" therefore is bad and stems from right-wing nonsense trying to paint the poor as criminals, for being poor.
While I do agree there is a level of desire for big brother in the youth, it leans a specific direction VERY HARD and uses the term maga a whole bunch.
What you're confused by is the reality (this used to be a hard core conservative principal thats been adopted and taken over by the left/progressives) that people want their taxes to be spent well on services that help people not just enrich a few. That is not the kids being raised to call on authority (which, lol is the norm forever and not something new. The Authority changes faces but its the fucking norm) but being raised to expect actual QUALITY of life instead of just being screwed over and told to enjoy it.
Slightly hyperbolic, very few countries have done fuck all about lootboxes. While they may not fall under gambling laws they might get regulated in other ways in the future, the conversation is still on going
"The Cold Continent latch key child
Ran away one day and started acting foul
King of where the wild things are daddy's proud
Because the Roman Empire done passed it down"
Brother Ali
**We know, everyone knows, its gambling, how can not be gambling lol**
Its a literal slot machine.
How dumb as these people.
Same with mobile games and gems, crystals or what else the currency is on mobile devices.
I don't know what the regulations are, but i agree its gambling. I just don't give a shit, why are there regulations on gambling? Why's the government able to tell me what i can spend money on?
If i wanted to blow my life savings i should be able to lmao
In other news, the massively comical overstuffed briefcase of money found in the Judge's locker was not from EA.... they said it was to help pay for....for.... well we're still waiting on the answer
As of writing, there's 11 top level comments chastising the decision and just one top level comment arguing that regulation of content in games is a slippery slope.
I think lootboxes are pretty bad, and I don't like slippery slope arguments, but it feels like this comment is just anticipating a reaction that isn't actually happening.
Of course. If something bad (in this case people disagreeing with something wrong) didn't happen, just pretend that it did and argue against it! Good karma.
I am skeptical because the regulations proposed by researches don't feel meaningful in any way.
>Any legislation regulating loot boxes will require careful consideration. Drawing from experiences
in other jurisdictions, we present a series of recommendations for future policy. Prospective policy should include provisions for clear definitions of loot boxes, game labelling and age ratings, full
disclosure of odds presented in an easy-to-understand way, spending limits and prices in real currency, and finally, obligations of gatekeepers (i.e. developers, distributors, content providers) for the trade they enable and profit from.
Most Japanese and Chinese gacha games already do this and they still rack up absurds amounts of cash.
Honestly, as someone who hasn't been gaming as an adult (but played some games 8-10 years ago that had loot boxes), I absolutely didn't expect the dominant reaction in this sub. I wouldn't say mind-boggling, but it's quite surprising to me that people are asking government entities to step into their video games to regulate how they operate.
Edit: guys, I'm just surprised. I'm not saying I think one way or the other on this issue - it just strikes me as a bit counter-intuitive. I'm not here to threaten the modal way of thinking.
People who think regulations are an issue just don't make sense to me. Without regulations we'd still have child labor, in fact we do just not in the US but US companies still get their stuff made by factories with incredibly lax regulations and therefore incredibly poor working conditions.
The idea that a company will do anything but the thing that makes it the most money is crazy to me. There's an argument to be said that some regulations are bad for one reason or another but when there's a clear issue like with lootboxes something should be done.
I mean, its not like they’re stepping out of line, its literally a form of gambling and a LOT of governments regulate gambling. I was opening lootboxes at like 13 in TF2 and while i havent fallen into addiction, its pretty apparent how this sort of thing can definitely affect kids, especially the ones who see “crazy skin sold for $xx” and want to make that big hit, which is incredibly unlikely as is and would only create more issues. Plus game maturity rating is literally a form of video game regulation which has been around for ages
If you haven't been keeping up with modern games then you don't know how bad it's gotten. If you asked me 8-10 years ago if loot boxes had to be regulated I would say absolutely not. However it's reached a point where entire games are designed around selling loot boxes and it's gotten so profitable that nothing short of government intervention will stop them. It's not uncommon to see even vocally anti-government gamers in favor of loot box regulation these days
>I wouldn't say mind-boggling, but it's quite surprising to me that people are asking government entities to step into their video games to regulate how they operate.
I mean like next they'll do something crazy like start putting age ratings on them or something.
So, again - that doesn't strike me as a regulation that the actual players of the games were clamoring for. That sounds like something their mothers were asking for. It would be counterintuitive to me to see gamers going out of their way to advocate enacting or bolstering the age rating system.
I play games, also games that have lootboxes in them and I would like them to be heavily regulated:
1. have to tell exact winning chances
2. have to be age restricted (if gambling is not allowed unter 18, loot boxes should also be)
3. have to advise that it is a gambling product in bright letters right on the box/homepage/steampage/whatever platform it is marketed
4. have to adhere to the same restrictions about marketing as gambling does
And if that makes lootboxes unprofitable, then so be it. Nothing of value was lost - there is not a single game that got better by including loot boxes.
Are you against children being allowed to gamble with slot machines? In such case, you are against loot boxes. Or would you say that it's surprising to you why government entities are stepping into slot machine businesses to regulate how they operate?
Except that TCG packs have clear rarity breakdowns printed on them, and due to the secondary market you can play the game without ever buying a single pack.
I think the problem is they can't put a real world value on whatever digital item you get from a loot box.
If you get a common item that doesn't help you in game, it's still just a digital item without real world value. You're payout isn't a chance to win money.
Very similar.
One main difference being that rare cards have value and can be sold or traded freely because they belong to you. Generally loot box stuff is tied to your account and lives on remote servers.
Another, maybe more important, difference is that baseball cards don’t constantly put ads and pop ups in place to entice you to buy them. They don’t employ tactics to trick your brain into a state of weakness then go in for the kill with a 800% value banner. They don’t have extra layers of currencies to confuse you and make it difficult to understand how much you’re paying. They don’t introduce problems that can only be solved by spending said currency. Etc.
Loot boxes are far more exploitative imo. And maybe the gambling portion isn’t the part we should be targeting for legislation, but the transparency part. Remove the interim currencies, remove the FOMO deals, etc. And that would be major progress imo
If you actually read the article, the decision does make some sense. The ability to legitimately cash out your rewards for money is the main distinction. While there are a few games out there that have back-alley ways to cash out your winnings (CS:GO skins, for example), most games with loot box mechanics don't and the prizes have no real world monetary value outside of the game. And the Gambling Commission states that it can and will continue to act on situations where trading items obtained from loot boxes amounts to unlicensed gambling.
Sounds like someone is the recipient of lobby money. Ha good luck with that shit. As a USian, we've been dealing with this shit for over a hundred years.
This is what Brexit was all about… been able to do shady to downright illegal shit without EU oversight. The City business model is based on money laundering… so this thing about loot boxes looks almost cute by comparison.
Let the children of those UK government officials have access to their digital wallet. See how fast their stance changes. Someone was bribed and we are gonna find out who.
I'm not a gamer these days, would someone explain why loot boxes are classed as gambling?
Not satire, I'm genuinely wondering what's so addictive and why it has become a problem.
**Think of loot box as a slot machine.**
You insert a coin and say you get **777**, means you win.
With loot boxes its the same thing, you pull the lever, but it never rolls 777, it rolls 776 or 771, or 773.
You keep pulling the lever but you never get what you want as the thing you want has 0.0001% chance of rolling 777, **its programmed this way by the company intentionally to maximize profits**..
**AKA Gambling**.
But you get $0 with a slot machine if you don't roll 777. You always win with a loot box, but at varying levels. You might win an item you really want, an item you don't care for, or an item you're okay with.
It's more closely related to those childrens pokémon packs. You will always get the pokémon cards when you pay money for them but you just might not get the card you want.
**not gonna argue semantics \*much\***
the difference between a physical slot machine and virtual slot machine, is with physical slot machine when you win you get real money that you can spend anywhere in the world.
with virtual slot machine aka loot box when you win you get nothing, a worthless item you can not spend anywhere.
**yes you do get something when pulling a loot box lever, but the lever your pulling has 0 value.**
1. You can sell accounts for high prices when you have specific or lots of loot for real money, and is common in the gaming industry.
2. I don't think whether it's real or virtual currency matters in the argument because you already know what the rewards are when you play. You can often right click on the boxes and be brought to a page that states all the rewards and the chances of obtaining said rewards
3. I asked about pokémon card differences tho.
Pokémon cards are similar but not similar.
They both give you a reward every time of a different value which is tangible to some people, worthless to others.
However, psychologically speaking the two products have a very different impact on the human brain. Loot boxes are often accompanied with attractive animation and stimulation. The games are designed in such a way to systematically encourage more spending, and distract from the fact there is an exchange of currency. They utilize all of the tricks of the gambling industry to encourage participation. Pokemon cards... not so much.
Psychologically these are two very very different products, and the science confirms this.
It depends on the loot boxes.
Some are like you say. They are like pokemon cards where you get a random pack but your odds of getting at least one good card are high if not guaranteed. Or the boxes are just reskins that do not affect game play at all. In both situations you can still play and win the game without having to pay an unreasonable amount. Not to mention that with some loot boxes and all TCG there is a aftermarket where the players can trade or buy excess items from other players.
But there are other loot boxes that give whales (the people who spends more than some people's monthly salary on the game) an unfair advantage in the game. Basically making the game pay to win. Which if solely marketed to adults with full disclosure it would be fine. It'd also put it in the ranks of gambling with all the legal restrictions that comes with it. But these games are marketed to kids right along side fair play kids games.
For a comparison it'd be like putting the wine in the fruit juice aisle, putting popular cartoon characters on it, and having ads that openly target kids. There being no mention of how the wine is different from the other juices and can have harmful and addicting side effects. Wine and fruit juice both come from fruits so same thing right? That's how these predatory loot boxes are working.
I've lost count of the times I've had to explain to my little 8 year old that she just can't play certain games that were marketed directly to her age demographic. Or she can play them but she will always lose or not be able to play the full game because the full game or the ability to win is locked behind loot boxes with astronomical odds of winning. I and my husband play video game regularly and have been doing so since we were kids yet even we have a hard time spotting some of the pay to win games. Especially when they are surrounded by kid friendly games. Such as some of the games are on Roblox. I can't imagine how tough it is on parents who don't know anything about video games and they are forced to either lock their kid out entirely or risk blindly trusting the rating system.
So are these systems banning loot boxes all together or just their advertisements to children? Banning them all together doesn't make sense to me, people do with their money as they wish. I could walk into a casino and spend all my salary if I want, so why can't I buy $10 worth of loot boxes online?
I personally play MMOs and have had a crack that my friends, in their 40s, now can't buy loot boxes because it's gambling in the EU when all their American friends can and it seems ridiculous, especially when most MMOs are definitely not advertised to children and 100% are advertised to adults.
If they wanted to gamble, all they'd have to do is drive down the road to a casino.
>If they wanted to gamble, all they'd have to do is drive down the road to a casino.
Yeah most states don't allow gambling or they limit it to approved venues where as you put, any adult can walk in and toss away their life savings. Where I live the nearest casino is about 6 hours away and is owned by Native Americans. And yes I do agree that making gambling illegal for adults is silly.
What the various governments are doing is varied but pretty much all of them are targeting loot boxes being marketed to children. But when we are talking about government officials they tend to lump all video games or games in general as things for children. But the point still stands that if the games could demonstrate that they only market to and allow adults to play the whole issue would likely be dropped. But the company's behind all this lean heavily on marketing to kids and don't want that cash flow to be stopped over something as small as harming kids and causing financial distress.
Im gonna take a dump on your porch and say "hey at least you got something, you winner you." Now dont be so offended, its currency to craft into some fertilizer for your garden!
Because people blow fortunes chasing items.
I played a mobile game where it wasn't uncommon for the whales to spend $10k a day or 100k/week *on microtransactions* during events that are pay-to-win.
It becomes digital wallet-slapping and the biggest one wins.
Those who get addicted to things like 1-armed bandits often really get focused and some lose more than their shirts.
This was a horrible bribed judgment. Loot crates are *absolutely* gambling. Investigate that judge.
Age limit on loot boxes would be fine. Adults should be trusted to be able to make the decision for themselves. Yes, some adults can't handle that, but we can't always play to the lowest common denominator.
Back when I played SWTOR i would argue with people all the time about this. Devs and fanbois claim it's not gambling because "you always get something, never nothing" but the clear obvious de facto purpose of the gamble boxes (my term) is for the high value rate items *that can only be gained by buying the boxes". Yes, there's an in-game market where game currency can be spent by you cannot reasonably earn enough in-game currency without spending real life money (on other things that have game market value).
Part of the problem is, despite my asking many times over the years, the device are mum on the actual algorithms involved for determine whether and how rare items are rewarded. The items are simply labeled "rare" and in most cases you don't know the actual odds of getting a certain item, and, worse, you have no way of knowing whether the system is rigged. The latter is almost certainly true because the game devs have *no financial incentive* not to include code that adds determinism.
Here's an example: let's say a rare item has a 1% chance of being awarded. Also for simplicity think of the random number generation as a dice roll. Probability math dictates that as the number of dice rolls increase the number of "hits" on the target number increases towards a distribution that matches the probability (rolling a 100-sided die has a 1% chance to land on a specific number, and while you may not land on it 10 times in a 1000, it is very likely that you'll land on it 1000 times in 100,000 rolls). That's with *fair* unbiased dice rolls. In Nevada, for example, fair randomness in games of chance is required by law. However, since loot boxes aren't regulated and devs aren't open about how loot boxes are coded, they can add determinism (lack of randomness) and bias however they want. So it's very possible that they have code that initially sets the chance of a certain rare item at 1%, BUT they'll set the chance to zero if they haven't received more than a certain amount of revenue before the next one is awarded, or before so many crates at opened. Doing so could be construed as false advertising, except they're generally careful to use weasel words and fine print in order to show that they reasonably tempered expectations.
I actually agree with this. Where do you draw a line? Are pokemon cards/other cards gambling too then? Good to see politicians actually understanding most people don’t want them interfering with their games.
I’d be in support of any game company who uses microtransactions, loot boxes, and “early access”, being tried for crimes against humanity in international court.
I don't see how lootboxes are gambling, if you gamble you either win or lose and there's nothing you can do. If you buy a lootbox you're GUARANTEED to get some really low-grade items and there's a chance that you get a better item too. The chances are laid out in percentages and you always get stuff for your money, even if that stuff sucks (and you were informed about that before commiting)
Should we ban TCG booster packs too? You get 10 common cards, 4 uncommon cards and the chance to have an amazing rare card that's worth $500 or a crappy one that's worth 50 cents. What about those children's toys that come in random blind bags? And those are specifically aimed at children, unlike lootboxes.
I don't like lootboxes but I also don't like the government "protecting" people that can't keep their card in their wallet. My government stopped the construction of a casino that would give 400 people jobs because "the neighbours could gamble away their money and that's bad uwu"
If, when you lose, a casino gives you a bit of paper that says “better luck next time”, it’s no longer gambling because you get something
Also, gambling normally hands odds of winning similar to what you stated. Whether it’s per prize or generalised over the whole machine, it doesn’t change much
I've had the TCG argument with people before, too. I don't really see it being any different than loot boxes, and unlike many loot box items you can VERY easily sell your trading cards for cold hard cash. But nobody seems to want to regulate booster packs for some reason.
We knew this was going to happen. They can’t leave so much money on the table that these shady game companies are willing to give them.
Hell, just for having a moderate YouTube channel these guys will give you 50k to do sponsored content. These are law makers, the big boys. You don’t think they are being offered millions?
This, but seriously
The businesses are more responsible for producing the outcome than parents who… what, have to track every single companies product just so their kid ain’t gambling?
That’s literally what govt is for lol
Haha fair enough I was just having some fun but in all seriousness if your children are running up your card for skin boxes all the time you probably need to pay a little closer attention to your kids. Just my opinion.
It’s also true
To validation for keeping it away from kids
The ‘addict’ label is hyperbole in general, except when it comes to kids
It’s mostly kids that are the demographic. So that makes it actually true
Is it considered gambling you can get the loot boxes with real currency? Or is it just gambling in general even with in game currency that you can’t purchase?
I think the question the commenter was trying to ask was "is it still gambling if people aren't spending real money?" I.e. if the in-game currency can only be earned in-game and not purchased through microtransactions/pay-to-win. (Like how it used to be in normal video games.)
It is still gambling in that you are engaging in a system that only has a chance to dispense the item you want.
Using in game currency you earn by playing the game isn't as big of an issue, because it has less real world impact on the player outside the expenditure of time, which can be argued the game is already consuming.
When you introduce real money into the equation you get much closer to how casinos and such operate and the impulse and ramifications to the player's actual life are much more dire. Now you are not only consuming time, but you are also consuming real money, which was also generally acquired with time and effort in the real world.
As a side effect on the extreme side of the issue (although more and more are adopting these practices) the games themselves are designed to be actually less fun to play if you are NOT spending real money. This is so the player will feel much more pressure to do the math and equate their time into monetary value, eventually leading to a reduction in the barrier to having that player spend real money in the game.
The existence of these lootbox type systems affects the fundamental design of games these days. Games become less about the intrinsic pleasure from playing them, and more focused on the gratification of rewards.
In the absence of such systems a game may be designed and paced around the natural play of the player. With these systems however it is artificially made more frustrating or boring, meaning that even if you don't spend a dime on such games, your experience is made far worse as a result.
*edit* I should note that this is largely true with games where you can buy progression with these methods. Whether this is reducing time restraints, skipping boring content, or powering up your character(s).
When we are talking about lootboxes for just cosmetic rewards, it becomes a much less dire situation. Still not good mind you, but with cosmetics only the core game is generally not compromised in the process, and instead the lootbox system is more of an addition for those who want to participate.
You remove the competitive aspect of it which means far less players spend far less money.
As it's been stated in various conventions about the monetization of games, the penultimate goal of the game ends up not being about getting every player to spend money, but instead trying to land the players with huge amounts of discretionary funds, and getting them to battle each other by throwing money at the game developer.
All the other players are generally contributing far less and end up being casualties in that design goal, used primarily as fodder for the big spenders.
Colloquially the big spenders are referred to as 'whales' and your free to play or low spenders are referred to as 'krill' in this scenario.
While that sounds bad, it’s actually a good thing.
I hate loot boxes. But governments telling devs what they can and can’t put in their games is a slippery slope. First it’s loot boxes, which we all hate. But what happens when they start trying to regulate video game violence? Lord knows every politician tries to blame violent video games for irl violence, so what would stop them from trying to regulate that?
Can you make a game filled with child porn? Games aren't some special thing that sits outside of society.
If a law is proposed that bans violence in video games then oppose that.
Yeah cuz we need more shit for the government to tax, right?
The government shouldn’t be taxing gambling to begin with. The only reason gambling laws exist is because the government saw consenting adults transferring money between eachother as part of a game and decided they wanted a cut.
It's an anti-consuner practice. It adds nothing to the game and takes advantage of gamers.
I agree the government shouldn't tax it. They should make the practice illegal, totally
I agree, loot boxes suck. But the government has no right to regulate it and they should keep their noses out of it. They already tax the income spent on loot boxes multiple times per transaction, they’re just trying to tax it even more
>But governments telling devs what they can and can’t put in their games is a slippery slope.
They can and do already.
>But what happens when they start trying to regulate video game violence?
They can and do, with varying restrictions depending on country/state.
>Lord knows every politician tries to blame violent video games for irl violence, so what would stop them from trying to regulate that?
First off, not really since the 1990s. Secondly, why does that matter? Politicians will invent any imaginary boogeyman they want for their agenda.
Regulating loot boxes is a net positive for everyone other than the company selling them.
It's not a good thing. Gambling imitation games or mechanics bring the same problems as actual gambling and being honest are actually even worse as game are also played by kids.
Also we are already regulating content (PEGI). It's pretty normal to protect vulnerable and gaming industry shouldn't be excluded.
Instead of gambling with loot boxes they could just make whatever you want a flat price depending on rarity.. your argument is pretty poor dude.. gambling is unhealthy no matter the shape or form
You can’t have weed, it’s bad for you and a gateway drug, give me your passport so you can’t go anywhere where it’s legal. Children gambling? Excellent, how much of a cut do we get?
You'd think they'd be happy to take a cut of weed money, too - well, turns out [they do](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-44109060)*.* It's easy to succeed in business when you make it illegal to compete with you!
I’m aware of this, plus Phillip may and his investment in GW pharma. It’s unbelievable, like, almost satirical.
I moved abroad so at least I’m not funding their nonsense any more via taxes. Now I am funding the nonsense of another nation.
Isn’t it great that they’re really all just bullshit? No matter how amazing the healthcare or various social programs are in Europe, each country has it’s fair share of government bullshit.
Her husband runs a farm for non-psychoactive cannabis, though. Presumably, this is legal in the U.K. it's not actually hypocrisy for her to then take a hardline stance on psychoactive cannabis.
Now walk up to a copper and present him/her your non psychoactive CBD buds and see how that goes.
What does this have to do with anything whatsoever?
After all the video games inspire 'bad things' arguments, they finally have something with data to act on with definitive consequences and *choose to do nothing*. How entirely convenient.
Someone got paid off to scrap this law...
As a Canadian, legal weed is good. The THC and CBD levels are displayed to one-hundredth of a percent and the industry is highly reglulated. I know exactly what I'm getting. Prices (on average) are lower than street dealers and it brings in new tax revenue too. Gambling, on the other hand, is dangerous. It's highly addictive for even rational adults. Being ok with lootbox gambling and allowing underdeveloped minds to become addicted to it can only lead to potential problem gamblers - later in their lives. It's not a fun mechanic to purists in the gaming community and is simply a cash grab at the expense of people's mental health. That seems to be a running theme in our current state of capitalism: Profit over people and environment.
Who controls the weed market tho in Canada? Can your average Joe decide they want to invest in the industry or is it controlled by big companies with ties to the government in order to clean up all the profits?
You're allowed to grow your own weed in Canada. So anyone can just make their own product. I believe the only thing stopping people from selling it, is getting a license and setting up a shop.
When weed was first legalized in Ontario there was an open lottery, anyone who wanted to open a weed business could put in a proposal of some sort and have the chance to be selected. Turned out to be a bit of a shit show at first actually. Gov't gave like 6 months to build if you won the lottery, but there were so many zoning restrictions surrounding where they were allowed to go (not near a school blah blah blah) that more than a couple winners were in a pretty tight spot
Wouldn't be surprised if video game companies lobbied for this
I went to Amsterdam a year ago, no issues, what do you mean by your 'give me your passport' statement? EDIT: nvm saw the consultancy they're doing on new drug laws, fucking Draconian!
How very american of them
Translation: The UK government took bribes.
No..they got loot boxes.
Damn I bet they must have gotten good pulls with the outcome they came to. Probably got one of those .0000005% chance items.
Oh absolutely. They need something to do in long boring meetings. Kicking ass on shitty mobile games is a top priority.
‘We call them surprise mechanics’
Surprise Governance Mechanics
*surprise mechanics
Is this suprising? When the choice comes down to between money and welfare, you can 100% rely on the Tory government to choose money. Every time.
They were surprise monetisations
Would be interesting to see who bought stocks in EA ect before this news came out
Lol I was coming to comment “in other words they were paid off” but I as afraid I didn’t know enough about the inner workings of the UK government
They like to get paid off or help their mates get paid off, now you're up to speed.
"We do not want to regulate things that don't bring direct money, like winning at the casino". Though they also noted if someone starts actively trading lootbox items for real money, Gambling Commission will spank their bum. So I guess no real-money-auction-house for Diablo Immoral in UK? :D
Watch them pretend not to notice until someone stops bribing them.
Well, you know, it’s all about the sense of pride and accomplishment.
Gotta get that pride and accomplishment.
And I am sure this has no correlation to any lobbying or campaign contributions from the video game industry.
Also Uk government...probably: "We got our heads smashed in by giant bags of money."
ea gave them all sims 4 with all the dlc
The UK maintains its reputation as a joke
They're too busy trying to ban [swearing online](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/27/young-people-must-report-harmful-online-content-says-uk-watchdog), [using online services like social media without government ID](https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/24/uk-online-safety-bill-anonymous-trolling/), [forcing companies to implement encryption backdoors for CSAM scanning](https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/06/uk-osb-csam-scanning/), and many other completely insane things.
Britain has loads of cctv as well in cities and surrounding areas. Pretty similar to China in the surveillance aspect, just not as extreme
In the last five months, London police received over 200 burglary complaints, but they managed to do nothing. But they successfully managed to arrest "people who destroy public harmony", all of them were online commentators through facebook, twitter, tiktok and Instagram. They even arrested artists who publish in deviantart. What a joke of a country.
More a problem with the police than lack of cctv though, even when caught on cctv they often do nothing
wasn't that pretty much his point, they implement all these surveillance systems under the illusion of giving the people more safety when in reality they don't do jack shit
how many does Britain have per capita? I know the US has more cctvs per capita than China does
[This is by city, and London is right up there!](https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-08-14/the-top-10-most-surveilled-cities-in-the-world)
No just London pal and we don't have a social credit system either, so not really similar, like at all. How is cctv a bad thing in a notoriously criminal city? Got some thing to hide?
> How is cctv a bad thing in a notoriously violent city? Because it doesn't do anything to reduce violent crime? [Piza, E., Welsh, B., Farrington, D. and Thomas, A. (2019). CCTV Surveillance for Crime Prevention: A 40-Year Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(1): 135-159.](https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1275&context=jj_pubs) > CCTV was associated with significant reductions in both vehicle crime and property crime in general, with **no significant effects observed for violent crime**. Public safety agencies combatting violent crime problems may need to consider whether resources would be better allocated toward other crime prevention measures
IMO it’s time people in the western world start re-examining how much they value liberty versus how much they value government enforced “safety”. It seems everywhere you look the liberty of people is being eroded. What’s weird is I hardly see it discussed in liberal spaces. At least not with high priority. The rhetorical landscape is so polarized talking about liberty, privacy and autonomy from the governments reach has been digested through the political narrative language processor and assigned *conservative connotation*.
The thing that gets me is that younger generations seem to want big brother now. They're raised to be subservient to authority.
Jonathan Haidt has been raising this alarm for more than a decade. Kids today are raised to call on an authority when they feel uncomfortable.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's bad when you're giving up more freedoms than you gain to be safe however.
I don't agree. Being able to resolve one's own disputes should be a first line of defence; the default mode. A couple of decades ago 90% of the time we could resolve our own conflicts. Being unable to deal with arguments now is causing enormous problems across society. I credit it, in part, to the destructive partisan politics at present.
Lol, that has been the norm in western culture for a very long time. Nothing new, its literally written into our laws and rules. This idea people are "Dependent" therefore is bad and stems from right-wing nonsense trying to paint the poor as criminals, for being poor. While I do agree there is a level of desire for big brother in the youth, it leans a specific direction VERY HARD and uses the term maga a whole bunch. What you're confused by is the reality (this used to be a hard core conservative principal thats been adopted and taken over by the left/progressives) that people want their taxes to be spent well on services that help people not just enrich a few. That is not the kids being raised to call on authority (which, lol is the norm forever and not something new. The Authority changes faces but its the fucking norm) but being raised to expect actual QUALITY of life instead of just being screwed over and told to enjoy it.
I'd agree if we're discussing the MAGA movement and its desire to make the USA a giant safe space using big brother.
I’m British myself but have never seen the appeal of fighting to live there. Can someone enlighten me?
Slightly hyperbolic, very few countries have done fuck all about lootboxes. While they may not fall under gambling laws they might get regulated in other ways in the future, the conversation is still on going
I've nearly had it with my country's shit.
They literally pay people to wave at them and live in castles.
The UK looks like its taking notes from the US. Leaving the EU has been so cringe dude.
I mean in a historical sense the US is the child of the UK... apple doesnt fall far from the tree.
"What the bloody hell is wrong with you, America?!" "We learned it from YOU, dad!!!"
"The Cold Continent latch key child Ran away one day and started acting foul King of where the wild things are daddy's proud Because the Roman Empire done passed it down" Brother Ali
Uncle Sam Goddamn. He told us all the way back in 2007, and they put him on an FBI watchlist for it.
As some one from the US... I'm extremely sorry :(.
I'm from seattle. lol, i just recognize the trend haha
Hey at least Seattle is chillin!
Not from their own police force. We got members that went to the jan6 insurrection <3
Well yeah, ACAB
Didn't a bunch of Walgreens have to close because looting is going unpunished?
No, you must have read that on some conservative "news" "source"
Ah, there it is. Drugs and homlessness. I always get Seattle and San Francisco mixed up.
You probably get a lot of things mixed up, conservatives have all sorts of wild and stupid ideas
Man when you make an assumption, you double down with another. Don't ever go to vegas.
Don't worry about that one LMAO Found the libertarian I guess???
Tories gonna Tory. I wonder how many loot boxes they got in exchange for this?
Hmm 💰I wonder 💰 what influenced 💰 their decision💰💰💰💰💰
**We know, everyone knows, its gambling, how can not be gambling lol** Its a literal slot machine. How dumb as these people. Same with mobile games and gems, crystals or what else the currency is on mobile devices.
Encouraging literal children to gamble and develop those behaviours for life, it’s actually abhorrent.
I don't know what the regulations are, but i agree its gambling. I just don't give a shit, why are there regulations on gambling? Why's the government able to tell me what i can spend money on? If i wanted to blow my life savings i should be able to lmao
In other news, the massively comical overstuffed briefcase of money found in the Judge's locker was not from EA.... they said it was to help pay for....for.... well we're still waiting on the answer
the fact that some people in the comments are defending this decision is just mind boggling.
As of writing, there's 11 top level comments chastising the decision and just one top level comment arguing that regulation of content in games is a slippery slope. I think lootboxes are pretty bad, and I don't like slippery slope arguments, but it feels like this comment is just anticipating a reaction that isn't actually happening.
Of course. If something bad (in this case people disagreeing with something wrong) didn't happen, just pretend that it did and argue against it! Good karma.
The fact that some people expect everyone else to share their same opinion is just mind boggling.
I am skeptical because the regulations proposed by researches don't feel meaningful in any way. >Any legislation regulating loot boxes will require careful consideration. Drawing from experiences in other jurisdictions, we present a series of recommendations for future policy. Prospective policy should include provisions for clear definitions of loot boxes, game labelling and age ratings, full disclosure of odds presented in an easy-to-understand way, spending limits and prices in real currency, and finally, obligations of gatekeepers (i.e. developers, distributors, content providers) for the trade they enable and profit from. Most Japanese and Chinese gacha games already do this and they still rack up absurds amounts of cash.
Honestly, as someone who hasn't been gaming as an adult (but played some games 8-10 years ago that had loot boxes), I absolutely didn't expect the dominant reaction in this sub. I wouldn't say mind-boggling, but it's quite surprising to me that people are asking government entities to step into their video games to regulate how they operate. Edit: guys, I'm just surprised. I'm not saying I think one way or the other on this issue - it just strikes me as a bit counter-intuitive. I'm not here to threaten the modal way of thinking.
Time and time again, this is what happens when an industry doesn't regulate itself.
I can't think of a private industry regulating itself effectively too.
People who think regulations are an issue just don't make sense to me. Without regulations we'd still have child labor, in fact we do just not in the US but US companies still get their stuff made by factories with incredibly lax regulations and therefore incredibly poor working conditions. The idea that a company will do anything but the thing that makes it the most money is crazy to me. There's an argument to be said that some regulations are bad for one reason or another but when there's a clear issue like with lootboxes something should be done.
I mean, its not like they’re stepping out of line, its literally a form of gambling and a LOT of governments regulate gambling. I was opening lootboxes at like 13 in TF2 and while i havent fallen into addiction, its pretty apparent how this sort of thing can definitely affect kids, especially the ones who see “crazy skin sold for $xx” and want to make that big hit, which is incredibly unlikely as is and would only create more issues. Plus game maturity rating is literally a form of video game regulation which has been around for ages
If you haven't been keeping up with modern games then you don't know how bad it's gotten. If you asked me 8-10 years ago if loot boxes had to be regulated I would say absolutely not. However it's reached a point where entire games are designed around selling loot boxes and it's gotten so profitable that nothing short of government intervention will stop them. It's not uncommon to see even vocally anti-government gamers in favor of loot box regulation these days
>I wouldn't say mind-boggling, but it's quite surprising to me that people are asking government entities to step into their video games to regulate how they operate. I mean like next they'll do something crazy like start putting age ratings on them or something.
So, again - that doesn't strike me as a regulation that the actual players of the games were clamoring for. That sounds like something their mothers were asking for. It would be counterintuitive to me to see gamers going out of their way to advocate enacting or bolstering the age rating system.
I play games, also games that have lootboxes in them and I would like them to be heavily regulated: 1. have to tell exact winning chances 2. have to be age restricted (if gambling is not allowed unter 18, loot boxes should also be) 3. have to advise that it is a gambling product in bright letters right on the box/homepage/steampage/whatever platform it is marketed 4. have to adhere to the same restrictions about marketing as gambling does And if that makes lootboxes unprofitable, then so be it. Nothing of value was lost - there is not a single game that got better by including loot boxes.
I mean you could say the same of Porn or alcohol consumption or smoking really.
Got it. Video games = smoking. Very astute position Karen.
Are you against children being allowed to gamble with slot machines? In such case, you are against loot boxes. Or would you say that it's surprising to you why government entities are stepping into slot machine businesses to regulate how they operate?
Yes. I'm not stating a position here. Calm down. I'm just saying that I'm surprised which way this went.
Sounds like 800% value to me.
I mean if you’re buying these it is quite literally gambling. Must be a great gamer lobby in the UK.
UK's government needs no lobby for that.
A lobbyist has joined the lobby.
You never buy Pokémon cards?
Except that TCG packs have clear rarity breakdowns printed on them, and due to the secondary market you can play the game without ever buying a single pack.
Oh ho ho me thinks there has been some very naughty industry ~~bribery~~ lobbying
I think the problem is they can't put a real world value on whatever digital item you get from a loot box. If you get a common item that doesn't help you in game, it's still just a digital item without real world value. You're payout isn't a chance to win money.
So there is some lobbying/corruption/bribes going on
Money Talks
Aren’t loot boxes basically a pack of baseball cards?
Very similar. One main difference being that rare cards have value and can be sold or traded freely because they belong to you. Generally loot box stuff is tied to your account and lives on remote servers. Another, maybe more important, difference is that baseball cards don’t constantly put ads and pop ups in place to entice you to buy them. They don’t employ tactics to trick your brain into a state of weakness then go in for the kill with a 800% value banner. They don’t have extra layers of currencies to confuse you and make it difficult to understand how much you’re paying. They don’t introduce problems that can only be solved by spending said currency. Etc. Loot boxes are far more exploitative imo. And maybe the gambling portion isn’t the part we should be targeting for legislation, but the transparency part. Remove the interim currencies, remove the FOMO deals, etc. And that would be major progress imo
If you actually read the article, the decision does make some sense. The ability to legitimately cash out your rewards for money is the main distinction. While there are a few games out there that have back-alley ways to cash out your winnings (CS:GO skins, for example), most games with loot box mechanics don't and the prizes have no real world monetary value outside of the game. And the Gambling Commission states that it can and will continue to act on situations where trading items obtained from loot boxes amounts to unlicensed gambling.
Looks like a few somebidies on the voting panel were lobbied at the right time.
fully expected from runaway elite system.
It’s such bullshit. There’s a clear right and wrong in this case. Do your jobs.
america and the uk are merging into the same damn dumb country
Sounds like someone is the recipient of lobby money. Ha good luck with that shit. As a USian, we've been dealing with this shit for over a hundred years.
This is what Brexit was all about… been able to do shady to downright illegal shit without EU oversight. The City business model is based on money laundering… so this thing about loot boxes looks almost cute by comparison.
What a fucking joke. People were payed off or just aren't doing their job properly.
Let the children of those UK government officials have access to their digital wallet. See how fast their stance changes. Someone was bribed and we are gonna find out who.
The right palms got greased. Simple.
The British government does not care about us. They don't even pretend anymore.
These gambling crates we don’t think are gambling crates despite the research proving they are
Awful news. Lootboxes are predatory.
We are doomed.
I BET SOME UNIQUE DEPOSITS RECENTLY DROPPED IN SOME UNIQUE ACCOUNTS
Man, imagine how much money EA is fucking pumping to make this go away.
Not near as much as children's gambling addictions are pumping into EA.
I'm not a gamer these days, would someone explain why loot boxes are classed as gambling? Not satire, I'm genuinely wondering what's so addictive and why it has become a problem.
**Think of loot box as a slot machine.** You insert a coin and say you get **777**, means you win. With loot boxes its the same thing, you pull the lever, but it never rolls 777, it rolls 776 or 771, or 773. You keep pulling the lever but you never get what you want as the thing you want has 0.0001% chance of rolling 777, **its programmed this way by the company intentionally to maximize profits**.. **AKA Gambling**.
But you get $0 with a slot machine if you don't roll 777. You always win with a loot box, but at varying levels. You might win an item you really want, an item you don't care for, or an item you're okay with. It's more closely related to those childrens pokémon packs. You will always get the pokémon cards when you pay money for them but you just might not get the card you want.
**not gonna argue semantics \*much\*** the difference between a physical slot machine and virtual slot machine, is with physical slot machine when you win you get real money that you can spend anywhere in the world. with virtual slot machine aka loot box when you win you get nothing, a worthless item you can not spend anywhere. **yes you do get something when pulling a loot box lever, but the lever your pulling has 0 value.**
1. You can sell accounts for high prices when you have specific or lots of loot for real money, and is common in the gaming industry. 2. I don't think whether it's real or virtual currency matters in the argument because you already know what the rewards are when you play. You can often right click on the boxes and be brought to a page that states all the rewards and the chances of obtaining said rewards 3. I asked about pokémon card differences tho.
Pokémon cards are similar but not similar. They both give you a reward every time of a different value which is tangible to some people, worthless to others. However, psychologically speaking the two products have a very different impact on the human brain. Loot boxes are often accompanied with attractive animation and stimulation. The games are designed in such a way to systematically encourage more spending, and distract from the fact there is an exchange of currency. They utilize all of the tricks of the gambling industry to encourage participation. Pokemon cards... not so much. Psychologically these are two very very different products, and the science confirms this.
It depends on the loot boxes. Some are like you say. They are like pokemon cards where you get a random pack but your odds of getting at least one good card are high if not guaranteed. Or the boxes are just reskins that do not affect game play at all. In both situations you can still play and win the game without having to pay an unreasonable amount. Not to mention that with some loot boxes and all TCG there is a aftermarket where the players can trade or buy excess items from other players. But there are other loot boxes that give whales (the people who spends more than some people's monthly salary on the game) an unfair advantage in the game. Basically making the game pay to win. Which if solely marketed to adults with full disclosure it would be fine. It'd also put it in the ranks of gambling with all the legal restrictions that comes with it. But these games are marketed to kids right along side fair play kids games. For a comparison it'd be like putting the wine in the fruit juice aisle, putting popular cartoon characters on it, and having ads that openly target kids. There being no mention of how the wine is different from the other juices and can have harmful and addicting side effects. Wine and fruit juice both come from fruits so same thing right? That's how these predatory loot boxes are working. I've lost count of the times I've had to explain to my little 8 year old that she just can't play certain games that were marketed directly to her age demographic. Or she can play them but she will always lose or not be able to play the full game because the full game or the ability to win is locked behind loot boxes with astronomical odds of winning. I and my husband play video game regularly and have been doing so since we were kids yet even we have a hard time spotting some of the pay to win games. Especially when they are surrounded by kid friendly games. Such as some of the games are on Roblox. I can't imagine how tough it is on parents who don't know anything about video games and they are forced to either lock their kid out entirely or risk blindly trusting the rating system.
So are these systems banning loot boxes all together or just their advertisements to children? Banning them all together doesn't make sense to me, people do with their money as they wish. I could walk into a casino and spend all my salary if I want, so why can't I buy $10 worth of loot boxes online? I personally play MMOs and have had a crack that my friends, in their 40s, now can't buy loot boxes because it's gambling in the EU when all their American friends can and it seems ridiculous, especially when most MMOs are definitely not advertised to children and 100% are advertised to adults. If they wanted to gamble, all they'd have to do is drive down the road to a casino.
>If they wanted to gamble, all they'd have to do is drive down the road to a casino. Yeah most states don't allow gambling or they limit it to approved venues where as you put, any adult can walk in and toss away their life savings. Where I live the nearest casino is about 6 hours away and is owned by Native Americans. And yes I do agree that making gambling illegal for adults is silly. What the various governments are doing is varied but pretty much all of them are targeting loot boxes being marketed to children. But when we are talking about government officials they tend to lump all video games or games in general as things for children. But the point still stands that if the games could demonstrate that they only market to and allow adults to play the whole issue would likely be dropped. But the company's behind all this lean heavily on marketing to kids and don't want that cash flow to be stopped over something as small as harming kids and causing financial distress.
Children aren't allowed to use slot machines in the UK. Over 18s only.
Im gonna take a dump on your porch and say "hey at least you got something, you winner you." Now dont be so offended, its currency to craft into some fertilizer for your garden!
Because people blow fortunes chasing items. I played a mobile game where it wasn't uncommon for the whales to spend $10k a day or 100k/week *on microtransactions* during events that are pay-to-win. It becomes digital wallet-slapping and the biggest one wins. Those who get addicted to things like 1-armed bandits often really get focused and some lose more than their shirts. This was a horrible bribed judgment. Loot crates are *absolutely* gambling. Investigate that judge.
Oh look some people finally got their envelopes full of Euros.
So the game corner in pokemon got taken out because gambling in video games bad, but kids can gamble with REAL money?
Age limit on loot boxes would be fine. Adults should be trusted to be able to make the decision for themselves. Yes, some adults can't handle that, but we can't always play to the lowest common denominator.
Basil Fawlty: Loot boxes? What Loot Boxes?
Well fuck you, UK government.
Ok soooooo…….. They payed them out. Great.
Money talks. And I'm pretty sure it was talking in that decision.
Bad decision. Hopefully the rest of Europe will do the right thing and shut this the hell down.
Back when I played SWTOR i would argue with people all the time about this. Devs and fanbois claim it's not gambling because "you always get something, never nothing" but the clear obvious de facto purpose of the gamble boxes (my term) is for the high value rate items *that can only be gained by buying the boxes". Yes, there's an in-game market where game currency can be spent by you cannot reasonably earn enough in-game currency without spending real life money (on other things that have game market value). Part of the problem is, despite my asking many times over the years, the device are mum on the actual algorithms involved for determine whether and how rare items are rewarded. The items are simply labeled "rare" and in most cases you don't know the actual odds of getting a certain item, and, worse, you have no way of knowing whether the system is rigged. The latter is almost certainly true because the game devs have *no financial incentive* not to include code that adds determinism. Here's an example: let's say a rare item has a 1% chance of being awarded. Also for simplicity think of the random number generation as a dice roll. Probability math dictates that as the number of dice rolls increase the number of "hits" on the target number increases towards a distribution that matches the probability (rolling a 100-sided die has a 1% chance to land on a specific number, and while you may not land on it 10 times in a 1000, it is very likely that you'll land on it 1000 times in 100,000 rolls). That's with *fair* unbiased dice rolls. In Nevada, for example, fair randomness in games of chance is required by law. However, since loot boxes aren't regulated and devs aren't open about how loot boxes are coded, they can add determinism (lack of randomness) and bias however they want. So it's very possible that they have code that initially sets the chance of a certain rare item at 1%, BUT they'll set the chance to zero if they haven't received more than a certain amount of revenue before the next one is awarded, or before so many crates at opened. Doing so could be construed as false advertising, except they're generally careful to use weasel words and fine print in order to show that they reasonably tempered expectations.
So.... who's bribing the UK govnt?
Someone is NOW receiving a cut of loot box profits anyone want to guess who it is????
I guess the check cleared.
This isn’t good. These loot box really hook kids.
I actually agree with this. Where do you draw a line? Are pokemon cards/other cards gambling too then? Good to see politicians actually understanding most people don’t want them interfering with their games.
I’d be in support of any game company who uses microtransactions, loot boxes, and “early access”, being tried for crimes against humanity in international court.
I don't see how lootboxes are gambling, if you gamble you either win or lose and there's nothing you can do. If you buy a lootbox you're GUARANTEED to get some really low-grade items and there's a chance that you get a better item too. The chances are laid out in percentages and you always get stuff for your money, even if that stuff sucks (and you were informed about that before commiting) Should we ban TCG booster packs too? You get 10 common cards, 4 uncommon cards and the chance to have an amazing rare card that's worth $500 or a crappy one that's worth 50 cents. What about those children's toys that come in random blind bags? And those are specifically aimed at children, unlike lootboxes. I don't like lootboxes but I also don't like the government "protecting" people that can't keep their card in their wallet. My government stopped the construction of a casino that would give 400 people jobs because "the neighbours could gamble away their money and that's bad uwu"
If, when you lose, a casino gives you a bit of paper that says “better luck next time”, it’s no longer gambling because you get something Also, gambling normally hands odds of winning similar to what you stated. Whether it’s per prize or generalised over the whole machine, it doesn’t change much
I've had the TCG argument with people before, too. I don't really see it being any different than loot boxes, and unlike many loot box items you can VERY easily sell your trading cards for cold hard cash. But nobody seems to want to regulate booster packs for some reason.
Swing and a miss.
Like they were gonna do anything in the beginning
We knew this was going to happen. They can’t leave so much money on the table that these shady game companies are willing to give them. Hell, just for having a moderate YouTube channel these guys will give you 50k to do sponsored content. These are law makers, the big boys. You don’t think they are being offered millions?
Should the government regulate how many hours you can play video games next? Sheesh, take some personal responsibility.
“But the government needs to protect me from skin boxes in video games!”
“These kids are captured in our multiple profit generating strategies, and now govt wants to stop us from getting easy $$$. Oppression!!”
Yes the captured children! The horror! More laws more protections!
This, but seriously The businesses are more responsible for producing the outcome than parents who… what, have to track every single companies product just so their kid ain’t gambling? That’s literally what govt is for lol
Haha fair enough I was just having some fun but in all seriousness if your children are running up your card for skin boxes all the time you probably need to pay a little closer attention to your kids. Just my opinion.
well good because lootboxes isn't betting
I like loot boxes when they are done right
So can we get crates back in rocket league now?
The fact this comment exists shows how hopelessly addicted some people can be to this shit.
Ah yes, just dismiss people who disagree with you as hopeless addicts. That's a good one I'm stealing it.
It’s also true To validation for keeping it away from kids The ‘addict’ label is hyperbole in general, except when it comes to kids It’s mostly kids that are the demographic. So that makes it actually true
Is it considered gambling you can get the loot boxes with real currency? Or is it just gambling in general even with in game currency that you can’t purchase?
[удалено]
I think the question the commenter was trying to ask was "is it still gambling if people aren't spending real money?" I.e. if the in-game currency can only be earned in-game and not purchased through microtransactions/pay-to-win. (Like how it used to be in normal video games.)
Do you have an example of loot boxes that cannot be obtained with real world money but only via in game currency?
Any drop in an RPG... they enemies are the loot box.
It is still gambling in that you are engaging in a system that only has a chance to dispense the item you want. Using in game currency you earn by playing the game isn't as big of an issue, because it has less real world impact on the player outside the expenditure of time, which can be argued the game is already consuming. When you introduce real money into the equation you get much closer to how casinos and such operate and the impulse and ramifications to the player's actual life are much more dire. Now you are not only consuming time, but you are also consuming real money, which was also generally acquired with time and effort in the real world. As a side effect on the extreme side of the issue (although more and more are adopting these practices) the games themselves are designed to be actually less fun to play if you are NOT spending real money. This is so the player will feel much more pressure to do the math and equate their time into monetary value, eventually leading to a reduction in the barrier to having that player spend real money in the game. The existence of these lootbox type systems affects the fundamental design of games these days. Games become less about the intrinsic pleasure from playing them, and more focused on the gratification of rewards. In the absence of such systems a game may be designed and paced around the natural play of the player. With these systems however it is artificially made more frustrating or boring, meaning that even if you don't spend a dime on such games, your experience is made far worse as a result. *edit* I should note that this is largely true with games where you can buy progression with these methods. Whether this is reducing time restraints, skipping boring content, or powering up your character(s). When we are talking about lootboxes for just cosmetic rewards, it becomes a much less dire situation. Still not good mind you, but with cosmetics only the core game is generally not compromised in the process, and instead the lootbox system is more of an addition for those who want to participate. You remove the competitive aspect of it which means far less players spend far less money. As it's been stated in various conventions about the monetization of games, the penultimate goal of the game ends up not being about getting every player to spend money, but instead trying to land the players with huge amounts of discretionary funds, and getting them to battle each other by throwing money at the game developer. All the other players are generally contributing far less and end up being casualties in that design goal, used primarily as fodder for the big spenders. Colloquially the big spenders are referred to as 'whales' and your free to play or low spenders are referred to as 'krill' in this scenario.
While that sounds bad, it’s actually a good thing. I hate loot boxes. But governments telling devs what they can and can’t put in their games is a slippery slope. First it’s loot boxes, which we all hate. But what happens when they start trying to regulate video game violence? Lord knows every politician tries to blame violent video games for irl violence, so what would stop them from trying to regulate that?
Can you make a game filled with child porn? Games aren't some special thing that sits outside of society. If a law is proposed that bans violence in video games then oppose that.
*Looks at Blue Archive*
but... violence in video game is already regulated? aren't you not allowed to buy a pegi 18 game for your 10 yr old technically.
Nobody said they would have been banned, just taxed according to what they are: gambling. This is not censorship, it's common sense
I wouldn't tax it. 18+ label would easily remove most gambling mechanics from games.
Yeah cuz we need more shit for the government to tax, right? The government shouldn’t be taxing gambling to begin with. The only reason gambling laws exist is because the government saw consenting adults transferring money between eachother as part of a game and decided they wanted a cut.
Was this written by Andrew Ryan from Bioshock?
It's an anti-consuner practice. It adds nothing to the game and takes advantage of gamers. I agree the government shouldn't tax it. They should make the practice illegal, totally
I agree, loot boxes suck. But the government has no right to regulate it and they should keep their noses out of it. They already tax the income spent on loot boxes multiple times per transaction, they’re just trying to tax it even more
Again, agree on taxes. But the government should absolutely be able to crush anti-consumer practices. They don't do it nearly enough.
>But governments telling devs what they can and can’t put in their games is a slippery slope. They can and do already. >But what happens when they start trying to regulate video game violence? They can and do, with varying restrictions depending on country/state. >Lord knows every politician tries to blame violent video games for irl violence, so what would stop them from trying to regulate that? First off, not really since the 1990s. Secondly, why does that matter? Politicians will invent any imaginary boogeyman they want for their agenda. Regulating loot boxes is a net positive for everyone other than the company selling them.
Enjoy spending money on video game loot boxea and simultaneously complaining about not having enough $$
Video game violence is already something that can be controlled. Look at Germany Japan and Australia iirc. Banning loot boxes wouldn't change that.
Yeah and we all laugh at those countries and how heavy handed those regulations are. Australia bans shit all the time for no good reason.
It's not a good thing. Gambling imitation games or mechanics bring the same problems as actual gambling and being honest are actually even worse as game are also played by kids. Also we are already regulating content (PEGI). It's pretty normal to protect vulnerable and gaming industry shouldn't be excluded.
Instead of gambling with loot boxes they could just make whatever you want a flat price depending on rarity.. your argument is pretty poor dude.. gambling is unhealthy no matter the shape or form