U.S. Senator Introduces Bill To Ban Loot Boxes And Pay-To-Win Microtransactions

[Amerek]

I think that Gemstone qualifies as a game designed with kids in mind - especially considering the absence of skinnable humanoids, draconian alteration guidelines, and heavy punishments for cursing...

https://kotaku.com/u-s-senator-introduces-bill-to-ban-loot-boxes-and-pay-1834612226

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) today announced a bill that would ban loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions in “games played by minors,” a broad label that the senator says will include both games designed for kids under 18 and games “whose developers knowingly allow minor players to engage in microtransactions.”

Hawley will introduce the bill, “The Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act,” to the U.S. Senate soon. In press materials announcing the bill, Hawley’s team brought up the Activision game Candy Crush as an egregious example of pay-to-win microtransactions thanks to its $150 “Luscious Bundle” that comes with a whole bunch of goodies. This bill will also likely apply to a host of online games that feature loot boxes and other ways in which players can spend money for real benefits.

“When a game is designed for kids, game developers shouldn’t be allowed to monetize addiction,” Hawley said in a press release. “And when kids play games designed for adults, they should be walled off from compulsive microtransactions. Game developers who knowingly exploit children should face legal consequences.”

Last fall, the Federal Trade Commission promised to investigate loot boxes following a letter from Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH) that she wrote in the wake of 2017's string of games featuring the heavy usage of predatory microtransactions, such as Middle-earth: Shadow of War and Star Wars Battlefront II. Although some companies have pulled back on the practice, popular games like Overwatch, FIFA, and Apex Legends continue to make big money off randomized microtransactions. Many of those games are played by both adults and children.

Hawley, 39, has become known in Washington for criticizing major tech companies Facebook and Google, often accusing them of anti-conservative bias.

UPDATE (12:18pm): The Entertainment Software Association, the video game industry lobbyist group, sent over a statement shortly after this bill was introduced: “Numerous countries, including Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, determined that loot boxes do not constitute gambling. We look forward to sharing with the senator the tools and information the industry already provides that keeps the control of in-game spending in parents’ hands. Parents already have the ability to limit or prohibit in-game purchases with easy to use parental controls.”

[Astray]

Link is busted.

Thank God too, Kotaku is fucking gross.

[Amerek]

Link is busted.

Thank God too, Kotaku is fucking gross.

Fixed. Where is your God now?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think loot boxes are a great way for kids to learn about economics.

[Stumplicker]

I'm sure this bill'll be killed same as the last few both in Europe and the US, but I think it brings up another important topic. There needs to be a harsh punishment for false lobbying in the name of income over common sense.

Nobody utilizing common sense can say that game companies aren't gearing their marketing specifically towards addiction. That will be one of this generation's biggest "Wow I can't believe how stupid we were" moments on looking back. Just like the generation before ours had 50 years of "There is no proven link between cigarettes and cancer!".

It really ought to be where if you willfully ignore clear evidence in favor of pushing another narrative in the name of profits, as cigarette manufacturers did before, and as gaming companies do now, you forfeit the rest of your life to a prison sentence. Of course, that'd sort of end a gigantic lobbying industry that affects, lobbies on behalf of or against, and permeates all aspects of life...so I'm betting they'd lobby pretty hard against that.

[Astray]

Fixed. Where is your God now?

Staring at cosplayers. Where's yours?!

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm sure this bill'll be killed same as the last few both in Europe and the US, but I think it brings up another important topic. There needs to be a harsh punishment for false lobbying in the name of income over common sense.

Nobody utilizing common sense can say that game companies aren't gearing their marketing specifically towards addiction. That will be one of this generation's biggest "Wow I can't believe how stupid we were" moments on looking back. Just like the generation before ours had 50 years of "There is no proven link between cigarettes and cancer!".

It really ought to be where if you willfully ignore clear evidence in favor of pushing another narrative in the name of profits, as cigarette manufacturers did before, and as gaming companies do now, you forfeit the rest of your life to a prison sentence. Of course, that'd sort of end a gigantic lobbying industry that affects, lobbies on behalf of or against, and permeates all aspects of life...so I'm betting they'd lobby pretty hard against that.

I think, but cannot tell, you are for punishing companies for features in their games that are for profit? Am I interpreting your words correctly?

[Stumplicker]

I think, but cannot tell, you are for punishing companies for features in their games that are for profit? Am I interpreting your words correctly?

No. You are not.

[Astray]

You could always make the argument that a game has a certain rating and if that rating is played by anyone it's unintended for, it's not the developer or publishers fault. It's ultimately the person who bought the game that is responsible.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

No. You are not.

Explain the cigarette to gaming analogy then please? That's the part that throws me; the part where you imply gaming companies now are doing things as bad as cigarette manufacturers pushing another narrative in the name of profits.

[Taernath]

Microtransactions as a whole aren't necessarily bad, but I do think loot boxes and things like them need to be recognized as gambling and regulated as such. The 'think of the children' angle is a little weird, and I'm slightly worried they're going to use it to push more censorship via ESRB bullshit. I'm going to get a good laugh out of them trying to define pay2win though.

[Stumplicker]

Explain the cigarette to gaming analogy then please? That's the part that throws me; the part where you imply gaming companies now are doing things as bad as cigarette manufacturers pushing another narrative in the name of profits.

Gambling is a heavily regulated system because of its propensity to be addictive and financially ruinous.

Drugs are heavily regulated because of their propensity to be addictive and financially ruinous.

What the game companies have done with marketing is pick out the addictive parts of other, heavily regulated systems that they can use to their advantage, squinted at them in a way that they can be called "technically not illegal yet" and then employed the exact same tactics that are heavily regulated in other industries, often targeting children specifically. Now they're heavily lobbying against illegalizing what they're doing despite knowing full well that it's the same thing that other industries have been regulated for. If you're aware a thing is wrong, and you spend billions of dollars fighting for it anyway just so you can extract a few more dollars out of some addicts, you should pay for that with your freedom when you finally lose that fight.

[Gelston]

This bill only targets intentional microtrans to minors. It will have very little, if any, effect if it passes.

[Taernath]

This bill only targets intentional microtrans to minors. It will have very little, if any, effect if it passes.

No, games “whose developers knowingly allow minor players to engage in microtransactions.” is extremely broad. Call of Duty, Dragon Age, Skyrim etc. all fall under that M rated umbrella.

[Gelston]

No, games “whose developers knowingly allow minor players to engage in microtransactions.” is extremely broad. Call of Duty, Dragon Age, Skyrim etc. all fall under that M rated umbrella.

Knowingly allow is intentional, in my book.

[Clunk]

Since Gemstone markets itself as T for teen and has a “note to parents”, GS is definitely a “kid’s game”.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown by age for players in the games.

My guess is the over 30 folks far outnumber any under 18 in Gemstone. Many of us have been playing well over 20 years.

[Stumplicker]

Ehhh..it seems...ambiguous unless they kinda fix the wording. I mean, you have to be over 18 to consume internet pornography. But they solved that problem of ensuring not to serve pornography to minors by having an "Are you over 18 years old?" question on the splash page of every website. That worked so well at restricting access to minors that they don't even bother to do it anymore! And I've never heard of a porn website being sued for serving content to minors, so they seem pretty legally covered. "They said they were 18, so we now have no reason to believe they aren't!"

[Gelston]

I'm curious who would enforce this. I'm guessing the FTC.

[Stumplicker]

I'm curious who would enforce this. I'm guessing the FTC.

The bigger companies I don't think would be an issue if a law got passed. I mean, I'm still fairly certain this gets killed before it ever becomes an issue, but the first second EA steps out of line after a "no more microtransactions" law, there will be a far pastier, nerdier, and digital equivalent of the march on Ferguson. The internet police would make a big enough stink to get SOMEBODY to act. Overall though, yes, very difficult to enforce. I'd imagine they'd have to do it like they do with online casinos. Force you to have a wireless connection for geolocation, and a copy of your SS# and driver's license. It's a gigantic pain in the nutsack.

Edit to add: I'd LOVE to see it work like that, by the way. Make it an opt-in system for adults rather an an opt out where you have to police against minors coming in accidentally. You have to jump through the same hoops as you would playing at a casino online if you want to utilize microtransactions. That'd kill that business model fast.

[Gelston]

The bigger companies I don't think would be an issue if a law got passed. I mean, I'm still fairly certain this gets killed before it ever becomes an issue, but the first second EA steps out of line after a "no more microtransactions" law, there will be a far pastier, nerdier, and digital equivalent of the march on Ferguson. The internet police would make a big enough stink to get SOMEBODY to act. Overall though, yes, very difficult to enforce. I'd imagine they'd have to do it like they do with online casinos. Force you to have a wireless connection for geolocation, and a copy of your SS# and driver's license. It's a gigantic pain in the nutsack.

Edit to add: I'd LOVE to see it work like that, by the way. Make it an opt-in system for adults rather an an opt out where you have to police against minors coming in accidentally. You have to jump through the same hoops as you would playing at a casino online if you want to utilize microtransactions. That'd kill that business model fast.

I just figure people under 18 shouldn't have debit or credit cards in the first place, and if they do, it is because their dumb parents gave it to them. Don't blame it on the games for their parents failing.

[Stumplicker]

I just figure people under 18 shouldn't have debit or credit cards in the first place, and if they do, it is because their dumb parents gave it to them. Don't blame it on the games for their parents failing.

A lot of those predatory games on tablets and phones don't need that. You click a button and it charges them directly on your phone bill and the parents don't find out until their children have racked up $8000 by the end of the month. Same with your PS4. My login is in there. If I need to buy something, it's not gonna ask me for a credit card number again. I'm already logged in when the thing gets turned on. Think Gemstone per hour back in the day, only the hours aren't limited by how long you can stay awake. Just how fast you can click.

[Gelston]

A lot of those predatory games on tablets and phones don't need that. You click a button and it charges them directly on your phone bill and the parents don't find out until their children have racked up $8000 by the end of the month. Think Gemstone per hour back in the day, only the hours aren't limited by how long you can stay awake. Just how fast you can click.

Again, the parents need to have a password set, or just have purchases turned off. Any parent that took a cursory interest in what their child was doing would spot this. It is a parent failure, not a legislative action.

[Stumplicker]

Again, the parents need to have a password set, or just have purchases turned off. Any parent that took a cursory interest in what their child was doing would spot this. It is a parent failure, not a legislative action.

For games that offer that, sure. Some of them do. Some of them don't. I'm pretty sure that Kardashian game (or one of its clones) got ultra-sued and taken out at one point because it didn't clearly label what you were spending or ask for silly things like permission or passwords. Some of these games, not all of them, but some of them, are designed specifically to ease and trick you into spending money unknowingly.

I mean, we never had to pull out a credit card when our parents received enormous gemstone bills back in the day. We were never given warnings when the AOL number we chose to dial into was long distance. But we were able to rack up thousands and thousands of dollars in charges, with no oversight, permission, or legal right. Not only is that now the norm, but companies are actively trying to ease and trick you into doing just that.

MTG Arena, for example. I made a purchase from that. It follows all the rules, but if I have access to my computer, and I haven't logged in from an IP address in Somalia, it doesn't even give the option (or didn't last I checked) to opt out of saving my payment info. It just has it now. If you break into my apartment, you can buy whatever the fuck you want without any passwords at all. Just run the program, click buy. It's for "my convenience", you see. That one may improve. It's still in beta. But a lot of these games marketed at kids are truly shameless and do actively try to get you to click those buttons without fully understanding the cost.

[Gelston]

For games that offer that, sure. Some of them do. Some of them don't. I'm pretty sure that Kardashian game (or one of its clones) got ultra-sued and taken out at one point because it didn't clearly label what you were spending or ask for silly things like permission or passwords. Some of these games, not all of them, but some of them, are designed specifically to ease and trick you into spending money unknowingly.

I mean, we never had to pull out a credit card when our parents received enormous gemstone bills back in the day. We were never given warnings when the AOL number we chose to dial into was long distance. But we were able to rack up thousands and thousands of dollars in charges, with no oversight, permission, or legal right. Not only is that now the norm, but companies are actively trying to ease and trick you into doing just that.

MTG Arena, for example. I made a purchase from that. It follows all the rules, but if I have access to my computer, and I haven't logged in from an IP address in Somalia, it doesn't even give the option (or didn't last I checked) to opt out of saving my payment info. It just has it now. If you break into my apartment, you can buy whatever the fuck you want without any passwords at all. Just run the program, click buy. It's for "my convenience", you see.

Because your parents didn't stick you ass on a child account which would have prevented you from playing GS. The tools exist. Anything on a phone has to be linked to your card to make purchases, and all of these require a password. Anything that will hit your phone bill can be set to require a password too. It is the job of the parents, not the Government.

There are a LOT of things parents can do if they still want to allow their children to purchase things online. Prepaid/reloadable Visa cards are a big example. The tools exist.

[Stumplicker]

Because your parents didn't stick you ass on a child account which would have prevented you from playing GS. The tools exist. Anything on a phone has to be linked to your card to make purchases, and all of these require a password. Anything that will hit your phone bill can be set to require a password too. It is the job of the parents, not the Government.

By that logic, children should be allowed into casinos and be given access to schedule 1 drugs, so long as the parents take responsibility. It's not the government's job to police the business practices of private companies. For the record, I've never racked up any AOL by the hour bills. I must've missed that by a bit, because it was straight up free when I started in 94 or 95. But many of us here I'm sure do have those stories.

[Gelston]

By that logic, children should be allowed into casinos and be given access to schedule 1 drugs, so long as the parents take responsibility. It's not the government's job to police the business practices of private companies. For the record, I've never racked up any AOL by the hour bills. I must've missed that by a bit, because it was straight up free when I started in 94 or 95. But many of us here I'm sure do have those stories.

Um, no, because schedule 1 drugs are illegal for everyone. I don't mind kids being in Casinos if their parents support it though.

I personally want the Government as far the fuck away from my entertainment as possible. They already gayed up TV and radio and now they are moving to make the internet and video games fucking stupid too. Parents need to take up some fucking responsibility instead of whining to the Government to raise their little shitstains.

[Parkbandit]

I personally want the Government as far the fuck away from my entertainment as possible. They already gayed up TV and radio and now they are moving to make the internet and video games fucking stupid too. Parents need to take up some fucking responsibility instead of whining to the Government to raise their little shitstains.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AchingVigilantAlaskanhusky-size_restricted.gif

[Stumplicker]

I don't mind kids being in Casinos if their parents support it though.


If that's how you feel then you and I just have a fundamental difference of opinion of what's acceptable for a child with a developing mind. And that's fine. It doesn't affect me or my child, so you do you. I shoo'd a developmentally disabled kid away from a poker table I was at last Friday and I was the least popular person at the table for a while, but I'd make the same decision over and over again.

All that aside, if you feel that loot boxes, pay to win, and gambling are what's keeping video games from being "gayed up"...I just want to go on record as disagreeing on that in its entirety too.

[AnOrdim]

For games that offer that, sure. Some of them do. Some of them don't. I'm pretty sure that Kardashian game (or one of its clones) got ultra-sued and taken out at one point because it didn't clearly label what you were spending or ask for silly things like permission or passwords. Some of these games, not all of them, but some of them, are designed specifically to ease and trick you into spending money unknowingly.

I mean, we never had to pull out a credit card when our parents received enormous gemstone bills back in the day. We were never given warnings when the AOL number we chose to dial into was long distance. But we were able to rack up thousands and thousands of dollars in charges, with no oversight, permission, or legal right. Not only is that now the norm, but companies are actively trying to ease and trick you into doing just that.

MTG Arena, for example. I made a purchase from that. It follows all the rules, but if I have access to my computer, and I haven't logged in from an IP address in Somalia, it doesn't even give the option (or didn't last I checked) to opt out of saving my payment info. It just has it now. If you break into my apartment, you can buy whatever the fuck you want without any passwords at all. Just run the program, click buy. It's for "my convenience", you see. That one may improve. It's still in beta. But a lot of these games marketed at kids are truly shameless and do actively try to get you to click those buttons without fully understanding the cost.

Bad example, there are several steps along the purchasing way in MTG arena where its an option to save your payment information. It is set to not save it by default. You had to make the conscious decision to check the box to save payment.

[Stumplicker]

Bad example, there are several steps along the purchasing way in MTG arena where its an option to save your payment information. It is set to not save it by default. You had to make the conscious decision to check the box to save payment.

It very well may be like that now. It's been months. I bought in maybe two days after the servers came up and it was definitely very lax at that point. But like I said, beta, they may, and according to you have fixed it.

[Gelston]

If that's how you feel then you and I just have a fundamental difference of opinion of what's acceptable for a child with a developing mind. And that's fine. It doesn't affect me or my child, so you do you. I shoo'd a developmentally disabled kid away from a poker table I was at last Friday and I was the least popular person at the table for a while, but I'd make the same decision over and over again.

All that aside, if you feel that loot boxes, pay to win, and gambling are what's keeping video games from being "gayed up"...I just want to go on record as disagreeing on that in its entirety too.

No, I feel that it is a foot in the door for the Government to start regulating more shit that people complain about. It was stopped last time by the ESRB being created by the Gaming Industry itself.

And you're right, my views on shit doesn't effect you, or how you raise a kid. This dumbass law effects EVERYONE though.

[Fortybox]

LOL - Wyrom is probably crapping his pants and wondering how he pushes rachi's now.

[Methais]

I think that Gemstone qualifies as a game designed with kids in mind - especially considering the absence of skinnable humanoids, draconian alteration guidelines, and heavy punishments for cursing...

https://kotaku.com/u-s-senator-introduces-bill-to-ban-loot-boxes-and-pay-1834612226

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) today announced a bill that would ban loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions in “games played by minors,” a broad label that the senator says will include both games designed for kids under 18 and games “whose developers knowingly allow minor players to engage in microtransactions.”

Hawley will introduce the bill, “The Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act,” to the U.S. Senate soon. In press materials announcing the bill, Hawley’s team brought up the Activision game Candy Crush as an egregious example of pay-to-win microtransactions thanks to its $150 “Luscious Bundle” that comes with a whole bunch of goodies. This bill will also likely apply to a host of online games that feature loot boxes and other ways in which players can spend money for real benefits.

“When a game is designed for kids, game developers shouldn’t be allowed to monetize addiction,” Hawley said in a press release. “And when kids play games designed for adults, they should be walled off from compulsive microtransactions. Game developers who knowingly exploit children should face legal consequences.”

Last fall, the Federal Trade Commission promised to investigate loot boxes following a letter from Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH) that she wrote in the wake of 2017's string of games featuring the heavy usage of predatory microtransactions, such as Middle-earth: Shadow of War and Star Wars Battlefront II. Although some companies have pulled back on the practice, popular games like Overwatch, FIFA, and Apex Legends continue to make big money off randomized microtransactions. Many of those games are played by both adults and children.

Hawley, 39, has become known in Washington for criticizing major tech companies Facebook and Google, often accusing them of anti-conservative bias.

UPDATE (12:18pm): The Entertainment Software Association, the video game industry lobbyist group, sent over a statement shortly after this bill was introduced: “Numerous countries, including Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, determined that loot boxes do not constitute gambling. We look forward to sharing with the senator the tools and information the industry already provides that keeps the control of in-game spending in parents’ hands. Parents already have the ability to limit or prohibit in-game purchases with easy to use parental controls.”

I hate P2W as much as anyone else, but this whole thing sounds like a job for parenting, imo.

Playing the "It's for the children" card with no mention of actual parenting is retarded as fuck and makes him look retarded as fuck.

If randomized loot boxes are gambling though, then aren't these also gambling?

https://www.candymachines.com/images/bulk_vending_machines/toy_capsule_vending_machines/single-stand-superpro-toy-vendor-machine.jpg

[Methais]

Link is busted.

Thank God too, Kotaku is fucking gross.

https://i.imgflip.com/2vfly8.jpg

[Methais]

Gambling is a heavily regulated system because of its propensity to be addictive and financially ruinous.

Drugs are heavily regulated because of their propensity to be addictive and financially ruinous.

What the game companies have done with marketing is pick out the addictive parts of other, heavily regulated systems that they can use to their advantage, squinted at them in a way that they can be called "technically not illegal yet" and then employed the exact same tactics that are heavily regulated in other industries, often targeting children specifically. Now they're heavily lobbying against illegalizing what they're doing despite knowing full well that it's the same thing that other industries have been regulated for. If you're aware a thing is wrong, and you spend billions of dollars fighting for it anyway just so you can extract a few more dollars out of some addicts, you should pay for that with your freedom when you finally lose that fight.

The problem with this is 99.99999% of the time the stuff you're buying, even non-cosmetic stuff, is optional and not a requirement in order to play the game.

[Methais]

Since Gemstone markets itself as T for teen and has a “note to parents”, GS is definitely a “kid’s game”.

I think this bill has legs, lots of conservative R’s are on board with it, we’ll see where it goes.

How often are conservatives, or anyone in the government for that matter, correct about anything involving video games though?

How often do they even have the first clue what they're talking about to begin with in regards to video games?

[Methais]

I'm curious who would enforce this. I'm guessing the FTC.

Andraste.

[Methais]

By that logic, children should be allowed into casinos and be given access to schedule 1 drugs, so long as the parents take responsibility. It's not the government's job to police the business practices of private companies. For the record, I've never racked up any AOL by the hour bills. I must've missed that by a bit, because it was straight up free when I started in 94 or 95. But many of us here I'm sure do have those stories.

How is expecting parents to not live with their heads up their ass and at least have some clue about what their kids are doing and how their stuff works the government's responsibility?

Your post was a really stupid fucking analogy btw. In case nobody has let you know yet.

[Methais]

All that aside, if you feel that loot boxes, pay to win, and gambling are what's keeping video games from being "gayed up"...I just want to go on record as disagreeing on that in its entirety too.

Lack of parenting is the underlying reason for 99% of things that have been gayed up by the government being gayed up.

Everything you've mentioned so far already has simple solutions in place. All they require is minimal parenting.

[Methais]

LOL - Wyrom is probably crapping his pants and wondering how he pushes rachi's now.

"Due to player demand, we have decided to let players purchase high end items for straight up cash and loaded up the shop with all the HESS stuff. No more DR grinding, just fork over your cash and get your new broadsword!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Stumplicker]

How is expecting parents to not live with their heads up their ass and at least have some clue about what their kids are doing and how their stuff works the government's responsibility?

Your post was a really stupid fucking analogy btw. In case nobody has let you know yet.

I'm sorry you didn't understand the content of my posts. I don't think I can help you with that.

[Methais]

I'm sorry you didn't understand the content of my posts. I don't think I can help you with that.

I'm sorry that you don't understand that disagreeing with the content of your post because the content of your post is retarded doesn't indicate a lack of understanding.

Should these be considered gambling though?

https://www.candymachines.com/images/bulk_vending_machines/toy_capsule_vending_machines/single-stand-superpro-toy-vendor-machine.jpg

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm sorry you didn't understand the content of my posts. I don't think I can help you with that.

I stopped responding because it didn't make sense to me either.

Maybe it's you ;p

[Astray]

GAMBLING DEVICES
Yo, if I don't get the Red Ninja, I'm throwing it out the window.

[Stumplicker]

I stopped responding because it didn't make sense to me either.

Maybe it's you ;p

Gelston's argument was that parental responsibility trumps all other things and therefore the government should not step in to regulate any system.

Gambling and drugs are two examples of industries that are heavily regulated because of their propensity for abuse, financial ruin, and addiction. It's been deemed necessary to prohibit children from these things until their minds develop to a point where they can make informed decisions about them. Gambling and drugs are also the two industries from which this particular issue and the marketing in question were born.

No one here has disputed the fact that the same marketing systems have been put in place across all three industries. Two of the industries are heavily regulated in regards to that marketing; the third is not.

If the reasoning for the third not being regulated is "because parents", then the other two by that logic should also not be regulated because parents should simply prevent their children from gambling or using drugs.

Parental responsibility and teaching your children good practices is absolutely a good thing. That's not and never has been in dispute. But regulations exist for a reason, and not all of them are bad. In this particular case, there are many good reasons to regulate, and very few not to.

Arguing on behalf of microtransactions, pay to win and lootboxes is not the winner here.

[Gelston]

Gelston's argument was that parental responsibility trumps all other things and therefore the government should not step in to regulate any system.

Gambling and drugs are two examples of industries that are heavily regulated because of their propensity for abuse, financial ruin, and addiction. It's been deemed necessary to prohibit children from these things until their minds develop to a point where they can make informed decisions about them. Gambling and drugs are also the two industries from which this particular issue and the marketing in question were born.

No one here has disputed the fact that the same marketing systems have been put in place across all three industries. Two of the industries are heavily regulated in regards to that marketing; the third is not.

If the reasoning for the third not being regulated is "because parents", then the other two by that logic should also not be regulated because parents should simply prevent their children from gambling or using drugs.

Parental responsibility and teaching your children good practices is absolutely a good thing. That's not and never has been in dispute. But regulations exist for a reason, and not all of them are bad. In this particular case, there are many good reasons to regulate, and very few not to.

Arguing on behalf of microtransactions, pay to win and lootboxes is not the winner here.

That wasn't my argument. You fail at reading.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

He jumped the shark when he equated cigarettes and virtual loot boxes as being in the same category, for me.

[Methais]

Gelston's argument was that parental responsibility trumps all other things and therefore the government should not step in to regulate any system.

I'm sorry you didn't understand the content of Gelston's posts. I don't think I can help you with that.

[Methais]

Where are kids going to get casino money from anyway? You can save your lunch money up for a week and throw in on a bag of weed with your friends on Friday or whatever, but something tells me that's not going to scale well with casinos.

It's not like you can just walk into a casino with your mom's credit card saved into their system like you can if you want to piss away money on Candy Crush because the kid's parents were too dumb and/or lazy to use the built in parental controls that would prevent them from doing that.

[Stumplicker]

That wasn't my argument. You fail at reading.


I don't mind kids being in Casinos if their parents support it though.


No, I feel that it is a foot in the door for the Government to start regulating more shit that people complain about.

If your stance is not "regulation bad. parental responsibility good.", then please enlighten me on why you feel pay to win and loot boxes are a good thing for everyone. Everything you've said until now supports my statement.

[Stanley Burrell]

https://www.candymachines.com/images/bulk_vending_machines/toy_capsule_vending_machines/single-stand-superpro-toy-vendor-machine.jpg

God damn I want that shiny shit.

Hold on, lemme suck like fifty dicks brb.

[Gelston]

If your stance is not "regulation bad. parental responsibility good.", then please enlighten me on why you feel pay to win and loot boxes are a good thing for everyone. Everything you've said until now supports my statement.

My stance is that you shouldn't legislate parenting. Staying away from hard drugs and shit would fall under parenting, but the drugs themselves are illegal so no, it isn't just a parenting thing. I never said they were a good thing for everyone, I said they are part if the parental responsibility of parents in raising their children. Don't want them buying loot boxes? Don't give them access to a credit card. That fucking simple.

[Alfster]

But dad. This is so unfair. Kevin got the coolest new skin in his box. It only took him like...35 boxes at 10 bucks a pop. Cheap!

But dad...

But dad...


Fuck. That's my future.

[Stumplicker]

My stance is that you shouldn't legislate parenting. Staying away from hard drugs and shit would fall under parenting, but the drugs themselves are illegal so no, it isn't just a parenting thing. I never said they were a good thing for everyone, I said they are part if the parental responsibility of parents in raising their children. Don't want them buying loot boxes? Don't give them access to a credit card. That fucking simple.

Gambling and drugs are not illegal. In most cases, explicitly not. They are regulated, and for the exact same reasons this regulation is being presented.

You are arguing on behalf of loot boxes and pay to win. That is the side of this debate you're on. That needs to be nailed home.

You're against gambling regulations in the first place, which I disagree with but as we were talking about before, that's fine. But make no mistake. It's the same thing. You should not be okay with one regulation but appalled by the other - and by all evidence, you aren't. You're for the regulations being gone altogether across those industries in favor of parental responsibility.

[Parkbandit]

I'm sorry you didn't understand the content of my posts. I don't think I can help you with that.

Maybe.. it's not him and everyone else.

Maybe, just maybe: It's you...

[Gelston]

I guess parental responsibility just isn't a thing for stumpliker.

[Stumplicker]

I guess parental responsibility just isn't a thing for stumpliker.

Based on what exactly? The opposite of what I've said?

[~Rocktar~]

I am not for this regulation because I know it will get fucked up in the implementation. What I would be for is a requirement that is clear and easily locatable that explicitly names the items to be obtained in loot boxes AND the probability of winning each.

Buying boxes to get a skin or the super, mega, amazeballs, wonder gun of ultimate doom that allows you to 360 no scope kill people through walls across the game area even when you are logged off might be wonderful and all, but knowing that you have a 1 in 78,000,000,000,000 chance to win it might, just maybe, cut into some of those shitty loot box cash machines that shit companies use to hook minors into clicking buy.

Will it fix it, no. I don't know of anyone other than game company execs that think loot boxes are cool and a good idea. I mean I buy them in World of Warships sometimes because they have a minimum amount of items in them and when I feel the lowest of the low item is ok at the price they are at, then yeah, I might drop 10 or 20 bucks. Seriously though, most major games loot boxes are worse than picking boxes off of kobolds except that the box is never worth anything.

[Methais]

Gambling and drugs are not illegal. In most cases, explicitly not. They are regulated, and for the exact same reasons this regulation is being presented.

You are arguing on behalf of loot boxes and pay to win. That is the side of this debate you're on. That needs to be nailed home.

You're against gambling regulations in the first place, which I disagree with but as we were talking about before, that's fine. But make no mistake. It's the same thing. You should not be okay with one regulation but appalled by the other - and by all evidence, you aren't. You're for the regulations being gone altogether across those industries in favor of parental responsibility.

He's arguing on the side of get the government the fuck out of our entertainment because they're stupid and retarded and will fuck it up just like they do with everything else they touch.

Stop being dense.

[Stumplicker]

He's arguing on the side of get the government the fuck out of our entertainment.

Stop being dense.

Yes, I understand how Libertarians work. Government bad. But regulations exist for reasons, as fully expounded upon already here. In this particular situation, the issue you're arguing for is the side of loot boxes and pay to win. There are zero arguments you can make that change that.

[Methais]

Yes, I understand how Libertarians work. Government bad.

Realizing that the government fucks up everything they touch has nothing to do with Libertarians. Do you disagree that the government fucks up everything they touch?


But regulations exist for reasons, as fully expounded upon already here.

Parents exist for a reason too. Their main purpose is to be parents, which requires acting like parents, which means don't give your shitstain kids access to make in game purchases on your credit card. It's not that difficult as long as you're not a complete retard.


In this particular situation, the issue you're arguing for is the side of loot boxes and pay to win. There are zero arguments you can make that change that.

Normal people: "Government fucks up everything it touches."

You:
https://i.imgflip.com/30madw.jpg

Stop being dense.

[Stumplicker]

Do you disagree that the government fucks up everything they touch?

Yes. Because laws exist. For good reasons. And education exists. So you can even have and understand this conversation. And roads exist. So you can get to your place of employment to pay for the internet. And public services exist. So the trees don't clip the lines that deliver your internet. Would you like me to go on?

Because there are some systems that are run imperfectly in a nation of hundreds of millions of people does not automatically disqualify all laws, services and regulations from being valid avenues of discussion. In this case, the discussion is to extend an existing, functioning, successful regulation from one industry into another logical avenue.

[Methais]

Yes. Because laws exist. For good reasons. And education exists. So you can even have and understand this conversation. And roads exist. So you can get to your place of employment to pay for the internet. And public services exist. So the trees don't clip the lines that deliver your internet. Would you like me to go on?

Because there are some systems that are run imperfectly in a nation of hundreds of millions of people does not automatically disqualify all laws, services and regulations from being valid avenues of discussion. In this case, the discussion is to extend an existing, functioning, successful regulation from one industry into another logical avenue.

I'm talking about government regulation, not "laws" which you're probably about to play semantics on now.

Since you know, the topic here is government regulation and how they manage to fuck up everything they try to regulate.

[Stumplicker]

I'm talking about government regulation, not "laws" which you're probably about to play semantics on now.

Since you know, the topic here is government regulation and how they manage to fuck up everything they try to regulate.

Such as the gambling regulations for how and to whom gambling establishments can market? And the requirement for offering outreach programs for people displaying addictive tendencies? That one you feel is being improperly regulated?

[Methais]

Such as the gambling regulations for how and to whom gambling establishments can market? And the requirement for offering outreach programs for people displaying addictive tendencies? That one you feel is being improperly regulated?

Let's pretend for a minute that there's no age restriction on gambling.

If a kid has responsible parents, where is the kid going to get money from to go gambling with?

[Ashlander]

Let's pretend for a minute that there's no age restriction on gambling.

If a kid has responsible parents, where is the kid going to get money from to go gambling with?

He/She'd have to get a job so a better question would be why is Stumplicker for child labor?

[Stumplicker]

Let's pretend for a minute that there's no age restriction on gambling.

If a kid has responsible parents, where is the kid going to get money from to go gambling with?

Ohhh I see. We're playing pretend now? Answer the question first. Then we can play pretend. How do you feel that the current gambling regulations are being fucked up by the government's implementation?

Is it the requirement to clearly mark the odds of winning? That they can't market to children? That they be required to offer outreach programs? How do you feel that loot boxes differ from the exact same thing being regulated there? How do you feel the implementation would be fucked up if the regulations were extended?

[Methais]

Ohhh I see. We're playing pretend now? Answer the question first. Then we can play pretend. How do you feel that the current gambling regulations are being fucked up by the government's implementation?

Is it the requirement to clearly mark the odds of winning? That they can't market to children? That they be required to offer outreach programs? How do you feel that loot boxes differ from the exact same thing being regulated there? How do you feel the implementation would be fucked up if the regulations were extended?

I don't know the ins and outs of the laws behind it. I just know 99.999999% of the things the government touches they fuck up, so I'm just going by their track record. It's possible casinos might be part of that 0.000001%, but I doubt it.

Now that that's been answered, it's your turn:


Let's pretend for a minute that there's no age restriction on gambling.

If a kid has responsible parents, where is the kid going to get money from to go gambling with?

[Stumplicker]

I don't know the ins and outs of the laws behind it. I just know 99.999999% of the things the government touches they fuck up, so I'm just going by their track record. It's possible casinos might be part of that 0.000001%, but I doubt it.

You doubt what? You haven't answered anything. You literally just said here that you have no idea what you're talking about, regarding this system, gambling regulations on the whole, or regulations in general, despite the fact that I just gave you the bullet points in the post you're responding to. Are you stating that what I've said about gambling regulations is inaccurate? It isn't, but you just said you wouldn't know any different either way, so that might be an angle you're pursuing. Are you stating that you feel loot boxes are not a form of gambling and therefore shouldn't be subjected to the same regulations?

You stated a post ago that the difference between "laws" and "regulations" is "semantics". Here's that:


I'm talking about government regulation, not "laws" which you're probably about to play semantics on now.

Is that really something you want to have said? Are you unaware that most regulations are in fact laws? Are you aware that the two words are synonyms, and their definitions reference each other?


Now that that's been answered, it's your turn:

Sure. I'm happy to tell you that it is very much possible for minors to acquire money that could be used for gambling in a variety of ways. You're familiar with many of them. They include things like employment, or clicking "Yes I am 18 years old" on Paypal.com, selling steam trading cards, being given free gambling tokens through promotions such as "free 150 simucoins per month!", trading game currency for gambling tokens, as seen in every game in existence with alternate currencies and a chat channel, running a lemonade stand, visiting grandpa, who finds a quarter behind your ear. I'm sure you're familiar with at least a couple of these methods of acquiring currency.

[Methais]

You doubt what? You haven't answered anything.

I said it's possible that casinos could be part of the 0.000001% of things that government doesn't fuck up when it gets involved, but I doubt it. Why is reading so hard for you?


You literally just said here that you have no idea what you're talking about, regarding this system, gambling regulations on the whole, or regulations in general, despite the fact that I just gave you the bullet points in the post you're responding to. Are you stating that what I've said about gambling regulations is inaccurate? It isn't, but you just said you wouldn't know any different either way, so that might be an angle you're pursuing. Are you stating that you feel loot boxes are not a form of gambling and therefore shouldn't be subjected to the same regulations?

I'm saying expecting the government to do the job that a kid's parents should be doing is fucking retarded and never ends well. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. It doesn't require being a scholar in government casino regulation to figure this out. Maybe it does for you.

But feel free to explain all the casino regulations to me without looking anything up or copy & pasting anything since you seem to know all of those regulations inside and out. Enlighten me with your superior knowledge.


You stated a post ago that the difference between "laws" and "regulations" is "semantics". Here's that:

Is that really something you want to have said? Are you unaware that most regulations are in fact laws? Are you aware that the two words are synonyms, and their definitions reference each other?

Yes I'm aware of that. And thanks for also proving my point.


Sure. I'm happy to tell you that it is very much possible for minors to acquire money that could be used for gambling in a variety of ways. You're familiar with many of them. They include things like employment, or clicking "Yes I am 18 years old" on Paypal.com, selling steam trading cards, being given free gambling tokens through promotions such as "free 150 simucoins per month!", trading game currency for gambling tokens, as seen in every game in existence with alternate currencies and a chat channel, running a lemonade stand, visiting grandpa, who finds a quarter behind your ear. I'm sure you're familiar with at least a couple of these methods of acquiring currency.

I'm sure all of that will go really far at the tables too. Or at anywhere else at a casino. Especially that quarter grandpa found behind your ear.

Everything you listed a kid could be doing for money are things that the kid's parents should be involved in, and the kid's parents should also be regulating how and where their kid spends that money. The things you listed except for "employment" are also a bunch of petty next to nothing sources of income that wouldn't even get you to a table at a casino, so there's that.

Also, please tell me how just clicking "Yes I am 18 years old." on PayPal will get me money. This could be life changing.

If the parent isn't keeping up with what their kid is doing, that's their own fault for being shitty parents. But it still isn't the government's job to be a parent for them like you're advocating for.

But feel free to tell me which things a parent shouldn't be in control of or actively involved with for their kids who are still underage.

And then tell us more about how the government is so fantastic at regulating things in general that we should trust them to regulate video games.

I'm also curious why you trust the government to regular video games in the first place and think that they wouldn't do a piss poor job that would wreck all kinds of things that didn't need to be. Please advise.

The point of all this isn't shit to do with casinos, it's the fact that you're calling for the government to regulate an industry when the underlying issue is a lack of parenting, either due to ignorance, laziness, stupidity, or a combination of all of those and other fails.

In your world, if some parents are too retarded to keep up with what their kids are doing, then it becomes the government's job to regulate the entire industry for them. If this is an incorrect statement, please elaborate.

And then please enlighten me further on how and why the government regulating video games is going to be so fantastic.

[Solkern]

I'm saying expecting the government to do the job that a kid's parents should be doing is fucking retarded and never ends well. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. It doesn't require being a scholar in government casino regulation to figure this out. Maybe it does for you.


Just wanted to add onto this.
I've spent a few years in China, and micro transactions are a huge problem there, and the people are demanding the gov't step in and remove these types of transactions.
Yet, if you actually see what it's like there...Chinese parents don't teach their children a god damn fucking thing and I mean FUCKING NOTHING. They literally just drop them off with their grandparents or at a play school. These kids have zero manners, zero anything..they are just completely crazy fucking animals...shit in the corner, piss on other kids... and the parents response when you say something? "It's not my responsibility to teach MY kid these things, it's your job, that's why they go to school."
Parents always want zero accountability in the wrong shit their kids do nowadays, and it's not the gov't's job to pick up the slack for people being shitty fucking parents.

I have a child now, and I let'er play on my phone, and guess what? I have my phone set, so she can't accidentally make micro-transactions, and I actually watch and play with'er.

[Stumplicker]

I said it's possible that casinos could be part of the 0.000001% of things that government doesn't fuck up when it gets involved, but I doubt it. Why is reading so hard for you?



I'm saying expecting the government to do the job that a kid's parents should be doing is fucking retarded and never ends well. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. It doesn't require being a scholar in government casino regulation to figure this out. Maybe it does for you.

But feel free to explain all the casino regulations to me without looking anything up or copy & pasting anything since you seem to know all of those regulations inside and out. Enlighten me with your superior knowledge.



Yes I'm aware of that. And thanks for also proving my point.



I'm sure all of that will go really far at the tables too. Or at anywhere else at a casino. Especially that quarter grandpa found behind your ear.

Everything you listed a kid could be doing for money are things that the kid's parents should be involved in, and the kid's parents should also be regulating how and where their kid spends that money. The things you listed except for "employment" are also a bunch of petty next to nothing sources of income that wouldn't even get you to a table at a casino, so there's that.

Also, please tell me how just clicking "Yes I am 18 years old." on PayPal will get me money. This could be life changing.

If the parent isn't keeping up with what their kid is doing, that's their own fault for being shitty parents. But it still isn't the government's job to be a parent for them like you're advocating for.

But feel free to tell me which things a parent shouldn't be in control of or actively involved with for their kids who are still underage.

And then tell us more about how the government is so fantastic at regulating things in general that we should trust them to regulate video games.

I'm also curious why you trust the government to regular video games in the first place and think that they wouldn't do a piss poor job that would wreck all kinds of things that didn't need to be. Please advise.

The point of all this isn't shit to do with casinos, it's the fact that you're calling for the government to regulate an industry when the underlying issue is a lack of parenting, either due to ignorance, laziness, stupidity, or a combination of all of those and other fails.

In your world, if some parents are too retarded to keep up with what their kids are doing, then it becomes the government's job to regulate the entire industry for them. If this is an incorrect statement, please elaborate.

And then please enlighten me further on how and why the government regulating video games is going to be so fantastic.

I did advise you already. You didn't like or understand the explanation as evidenced by the fact that you stated unequivocally that you knew nothing about gambling regulations, the proposed regulations here, or regulations in general, and presented no evidence or argument that they're structured badly. Would you like me to quote my previous posts for you in their entirety? Everything you're asking here has already been answered explicitly, in most cases several times over.

You are wrong. I apologize that my arguments consisted of more than "They gayed up TV" and "You're retarded". All I have to work with is logical answers. As I stated more than once though, this bill will most likely be easily defeated by lobbying groups, like all the other attempts, so you'll get to keep your loot boxes with no regulation whatsoever.

[Methais]

I did advise you already. You didn't like or understand the explanation as evidenced by the fact that you stated unequivocally that you knew nothing about gambling regulations, the proposed regulations here, or regulations in general, and presented no evidence or argument that they're structured badly. Would you like me to quote my previous posts for you in their entirety? Everything you're asking here has already been answered explicitly, in most cases several times over.

You are wrong. I apologize that my arguments consisted of more than "They gayed up TV" and "You're retarded". All I have to work with is logical answers. As I stated more than once though, this bill will most likely be easily defeated by lobbying groups, like all the other attempts, so you'll get to keep your loot boxes with no regulation whatsoever.

Sure. Please quote the parts of your posts that addressed any of this:


I'm sure all of that will go really far at the tables too. Or at anywhere else at a casino. Especially that quarter grandpa found behind your ear.

Everything you listed a kid could be doing for money are things that the kid's parents should be involved in, and the kid's parents should also be regulating how and where their kid spends that money. The things you listed except for "employment" are also a bunch of petty next to nothing sources of income that wouldn't even get you to a table at a casino, so there's that.

Also, please tell me how just clicking "Yes I am 18 years old." on PayPal will get me money. This could be life changing.

If the parent isn't keeping up with what their kid is doing, that's their own fault for being shitty parents. But it still isn't the government's job to be a parent for them like you're advocating for.

But feel free to tell me which things a parent shouldn't be in control of or actively involved with for their kids who are still underage.

And then tell us more about how the government is so fantastic at regulating things in general that we should trust them to regulate video games.

I'm also curious why you trust the government to regular video games in the first place and think that they wouldn't do a piss poor job that would wreck all kinds of things that didn't need to be. Please advise.

The point of all this isn't shit to do with casinos, it's the fact that you're calling for the government to regulate an industry when the underlying issue is a lack of parenting, either due to ignorance, laziness, stupidity, or a combination of all of those and other fails.

In your world, if some parents are too retarded to keep up with what their kids are doing, then it becomes the government's job to regulate the entire industry for them. If this is an incorrect statement, please elaborate.

And then please enlighten me further on how and why the government regulating video games is going to be so fantastic.

[Solkern]

You are wrong. I apologize that my arguments consisted of more than "They gayed up TV" and "You're retarded". All I have to work with is logical answers. As I stated more than once though, this bill will most likely be easily defeated by lobbying groups, like all the other attempts, so you'll get to keep your loot boxes with no regulation whatsoever.

Could you elaborate for me, why exactly does the government need to step in and put regulations on loot boxes in a game? I don't think it's their job....

[Stumplicker]

Could you elaborate for me, why exactly does the government need to step in and put regulations on loot boxes in a game? I don't think it's their job....

Sure. Read the previous seven pages of this thread.

[Solkern]

Sure. Read the previous seven pages of this thread.

Yeah, I breezed through it, but I still don't see why the government needs to step in and put regulations on loot boxes...
Last I checked there was already a law in place where if you spent real money on something, they have to tell you the % chances of getting something yeah?
What you spend your in game currency on, is up to you. it's not the governments job to control how or what you spend your money on.

I haven't lived in the states in quite sometime, so forgive me, I'm not fully updated on everything happening there.

[Stumplicker]

Sure. Please quote the parts of your posts that addressed any of this:

Absolutely. Just quote the part where you answer these and I'll get right on it:


Is it the requirement to clearly mark the odds of winning? That they can't market to children? That they be required to offer outreach programs? How do you feel that loot boxes differ from the exact same thing being regulated there? How do you feel the implementation would be fucked up if the regulations were extended?

And no. "I don't know about these things" is not an acceptable answer the second time around.

[Stumplicker]

Last I checked there was already a law in place where if you spent real money on something, they have to tell you the % chances of getting something yeah?

For gambling, yes. Lobbying groups have been pushing to say that loot boxes are not a form of gambling, however, which is the exact topic of this proposed bill and this thread. There is no regulation whatsoever in regards to gambling in video games. It's been brought to the table several times and killed by lobbying groups several times. As it will likely be here.

You're probably thinking of China that passed that law.

[Methais]

Absolutely. Just quote the part where you answer these and I'll get right on it:

You asked me if I needed you to quote your earlier posts after claiming you already answered everything in my post, did you not?

Why are you moving the goal posts now?


And no. "I don't know about these things" is not an acceptable answer the second time around.

Oh my bad, I thought this whole argument was about why the government should or shouldn't be regulating video games. I didn't realize it was a trivia contest about casino regulations.

EDIT: I originally misread the quote I was responding to above. Oh well.

But I'll answer it anyway just so you'll shut the fuck up and stop dodging my questions with your lame deflections.


Ohhh I see. We're playing pretend now? Answer the question first. Then we can play pretend. How do you feel that the current gambling regulations are being fucked up by the government's implementation?

Is it the requirement to clearly mark the odds of winning? That they can't market to children? That they be required to offer outreach programs? How do you feel that loot boxes differ from the exact same thing being regulated there? How do you feel the implementation would be fucked up if the regulations were extended?

North America
United States
There are presently no laws in the United States targeting loot boxes, though the renewed interest in the issues with skin gambling from mid-2016 highlighted several concerns with using virtual items for gambling purposes.[153] In past case law, courts have ruled that gambling with virtual currency within a video game is not illegal as long as there are no ties to real money, steps Blizzard Entertainment and Riot Games have done with their titles.[154] Further, most states define gambling laws based on receiving something of value from paying for a game of chance, and traditionally, in-game items are considered to have no value in previous case law. However, with more technically-literate court judges that may consider "value" more than just a financial value, alongside new perception of how much value in-game items can have resulting from the skin gambling situation, could change how the framework in the United States would classify loot boxes.[155]

In May 2019, Senator Josh Hawley introduced the "Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act", which targets video games that are either explicitly aims towards minors or are known to have a large audience of minors. The bill would ban manipulative practices in these games, which includes loot boxes, pay-to-win schemes, and other monetization options that can lure minors to spend money. Violations under the law would be reviewed and penalized by the United States Federal Trade Commission.[156]

Hawaii state representatives Chris Lee and Sean Quinlan issued a statement in November 2017 taking a stance against loot boxes. "These kinds of lootboxes and microtransactions are explicitly designed to prey upon and exploit human psychology in the same way casino games are so designed." They plan to introduce legislation in the State of Hawaii, specifically to block sale of Star Wars Battlefront II, and that they have spoken to lawmakers from other states to enact similar laws, such that federal legislation could be possible if enough states take action.[157][158] Quinlan stated:

I realized just how bad it has gotten. We’ve been on this path for 15 years with day-one DLC, subscription passes, pay-to-win. We as consumers kept accepting that, kept buying those games. Now we’re at a place where we need to consider, do we need to legislate? Does the ESRB have to consider a new rating that could deal with gambling and addictive mechanics?[159]

Rather than passing legislation that could have a slippery slope of harmful effects on the industry, Quinlan stated he would prefer to see the industry self-regulate, either by excluding gambling-like mechanics in games marketed to children, or have the industry rate games with these mechanics for more mature audiences which would affect how they would be sold and marketed.[159] Lee later outline how he would present a law, which would ban the sale of games to anyone under 21 if it contained a gambling element, defined if real-world funds are used to provide a "percentage chance" of receiving a specific in-game item rather than the item directly, applied both at retail and at digital distribution.[160] By February 2018, two separate bills were introduced in Hawaii's state legislature: one bill would require retail games featuring loot-box mechanisms to have clear labeling stating "Warning: contains in-game purchases and gambling-like mechanisms which may be harmful or addictive.", while a second bill would regulate sale of these games to only those 21 years of age or older, the minimum age for gambling within the state.[161] However, by March 2018, the bills failed to meet necessary requirements to be considered in the legislation, and were dropped.[162]

In January 2018, three senators in Washington state introduced Senate Bill 6266 (S-3638.1) in the state legislature,[163] which would, if enacted, order the Washington State Gambling Commission to investigate loot boxes and their potential effect on underage gambling.[164][165]

Minnesota introduced a bill in April 2018 that would prohibit sale of games with loot-box systems to children under 18 years of age, and require specific labelling on these games to alert consumers to the loot-box system.[60]

On May 8 2019 Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) announced that he intends to introduce a bill named the "The Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act,”" that would ban loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions in “games played by minors”.[166]

Multi-national

THERE YOU GO PAL!

Now to elaborate, this would be easy to change via the free market. All it takes is for people to stop throwing money at them with the way they're set up now.

"But what's going to stop that little shithead Jimmy from clicking the PURCHASE button 482374032 times!?!?!?!?!?!?!"

Good parenting. Good parenting will stop that from happening. Actually it doesn't even require good parenting. Even halfass basic as fuck minimal parenting would probably be good enough, at least as long as grandpa will stop finding all those quarters behind his ear, which is surely the main source of most microtransaction purchases.


Absolutely. Just quote the part where you answer these and I'll get right on it:

Yes get right on that. Because this is clearly a problem that only government intervention can fix and all.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/4de4d6a36cd21720040a344eeaa30511/tenor.gif?itemid=10913912

[Stumplicker]

Oh my bad, I thought this whole argument was about why the government should or shouldn't be regulating video games.

It is. One would hope that in a discussion about whether gambling regulations should be extended to cover activities where gambling is involved, involved parties would have minimal baseline knowledge of the regulations in question. As you've said though, you have none, even with them spelled right out for you.


But I'll answer it anyway just so you'll shut the fuck up and stop dodging my questions with your lame deflections.

Looking forward to that. Here you go. I'll even number them for you so you can more easily read them:




1. How do you feel that the current gambling regulations are being fucked up by the government's implementation? Is it the requirement to clearly mark the odds of winning? That they can't market to children? That they be required to offer outreach programs?

2. How do you feel that loot boxes differ from the exact same thing being regulated there? How do you feel the implementation would be fucked up if the regulations were extended?


Now to elaborate, this would be easy to change via the free market. All it takes is for people to stop throwing money at them with the way they're set up now.

Golly, that does sound easy. Could you let us know how to get it done on a small, even easier scale? Say, in Gemstone. How would you accomplish that? It's so easy.


Good parenting. Good parenting will stop that from happening.

Hey, good news, that's the case! Good parenting is how bills like this keep getting proposed. To keep regulated systems regulated and ensure that the regulations extend to all the systems they're supposed to be regulating. Such as gambling regulations extending to gambling boxes in a new form of media.

[Murrandii]

LOL at the arguing again that is going.

It's always the same damn pattern: I am right. No, I AM RIGHT.

If a matter becomes complicated, it's always to serve one's interest.

Are lootboxes a marketing system to generate more income? YES

Are lootboxes copying the addiction pattern (gambling) with people having addiction problems? YES

Is gambling a matter of addiction and is considered like it? YES

Are addictions an health issue? YES

Are addiction issues worst regarding kids ? YES

Does the Government needs to step in about kids health issues in their populations? YES

Does the Government needs to step in about health issues for the adults in their population ? Mostly YES (depending where you live).

Why make it complicated? Cause it serves one's interest!

[Methais]

It is. One would hope that in a discussion about whether gambling regulations should be extended to cover activities where gambling is involved, involved parties would have minimal baseline knowledge of the regulations in question. As you've said though, you have none, even with them spelled right out for you.

You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that I don't give a shit about how casinos are regulated. Not knowing the ins and outs of casino regulations doesn't disqualify someone from having an opinion on whether or not the government should regulate shitty parenting in regards to microtransactions in video games, which is what you're asking for. If video games were regulated it's not going to be a carbon copy of casino regulation, so it wouldn't matter in the first place. Either way, government doesn't need to be regulating anything with video games.


Golly, that does sound easy. Could you let us know how to get it done on a small, even easier scale? Say, in Gemstone. How would you accomplish that? It's so easy.

Sure, just as soon as you get back to me with the numbers on how much money children are spending on Simucoins as opposed to grown adults who can make their own decisions, even if they are retarded as fuck.


Hey, good news, that's the case! Good parenting is how bills like this keep getting proposed. To keep regulated systems regulated and ensure that the regulations extend to all the systems they're supposed to be regulating. Such as gambling regulations extending to gambling boxes in a new form of media.

Bad parenting is how bills like this keep getting proposed. Good parenting would prevent it from being an issue in the first place.

I don't know why you think it's so impossible for parents to regulate what their shithead kids are doing on the internet.

Should these be regulated by the government? Other than being physical and not digital, they're no different than loot boxes. They don't even tell you your odds for the different items and don't even require a credit card!

https://www.candymachines.com/images/bulk_vending_machines/toy_capsule_vending_machines/double-stand-superpro-toy-vendor-machines.jpg

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/84461313/yes-hello-government-my-neighbor-is-letting-her-kid-use-her-credit-card-please-regulate-microtransac.jpg


What would you consider to be worse? The industry self-regulating? Or the government regulating for them?

[Methais]

LOL at the arguing again that is going.

It's always the same damn pattern: I am right. No, I AM RIGHT.

If a matter becomes complicated, it's always to serve one's interest.

Are lootboxes a marketing system to generate more income? YES

Are lootboxes copying the addiction pattern (gambling) with people having addiction problems? YES

Is gambling a matter of addiction and is considered like it? YES

Are addictions an health issue? YES

Are addiction issues worst regarding kids ? YES

Does the Government needs to step in about kids health issues in their populations? YES

Does the Government needs to step in about health issues for the adults in their population ? Mostly YES (depending where you live).

Why make it complicated? Cause it serves one's interest!

Shut up Ososis.

[Murrandii]

Shut up Ososis.

shut up dreaven

[Stumplicker]

You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that I don't give a shit about how casinos are regulated. Not knowing the ins and outs of casino regulations doesn't disqualify someone from having an opinion on whether or not the government should regulate shitty parenting in regards to microtransactions in video games, which is what you're asking for. If video game were regulated it's not going to be a carbon copy of casino regulation, so it wouldn't matter in the first place. Either way, government doesn't need to be regulating anything with video games.

Gambling regulations don't begin or end at a casino's doors. They're in place in every form of media that uses gambling systems, from sports betting to lottery tickets to bingo halls. Lottery tickets are the lowest hanging fruit to use as an example. This bill is no more "The government wants to meddle with my (insert paranoia here)!" than disallowing minors from buying lottery tickets is, and forcing lottery purveyors to state their odds. It's simply an extension of an existing regulation to cover a new form of media that's using the regulated system.


I don't know why you think it's so impossible for parents to regulate what their shithead kids are doing on the internet.

What gave you that idea? Was it when I said this? -


Parental responsibility and teaching your children good practices is absolutely a good thing. That's not and never has been in dispute. But regulations exist for a reason, and not all of them are bad. In this particular case, there are many good reasons to regulate, and very few not to.

That does seem damning. I know it may look and read like the exact opposite of your assertion, but there must be some other foul game afoot.

All that aside, as I was with Gelston, I'm fine calling this one agree to disagree. I see the merit in what you're saying about parental responsibility. But loot boxes are gambling, and gambling is regulated. I feel the existing regulation should be extended to cover it, if for no other of the very valid reasons stated than "Fuck loot boxes."

[Astray]

If a child wants to spend money they earn doing chores or slinging crystal, fine. It's when they start stealing that I have a problem.

/s

[AnOrdim]

I'd be happy if everything just had to provide the odds in the same place that you make the purchase/transaction. I think this is part of what Chinese law enforced, or possibly EU. So any game that targets those audiences has to have it built in.
Almost every mobile game I play has a button right next to "loot boxes" in the game you can press that will show you your odds of winning each class of item. Not when you buy the funny money currency, but when you actually go to convert that into a "loot box".

In GS this would probably translate to ">Ask NPC about odds" and they would spit back a list of your odds of winning each tier of item. It still leaves the ultimate choice in your control, it's just a more informed choice.

[Fortybox]

Let's pretend for a minute that there's no age restriction on gambling.

If a kid has responsible parents, where is the kid going to get money from to go gambling with?

Macguyver

[Methais]

What gave you that idea? Was it when I said this?

It was when you said you want the government to step in and regulate the system instead of parents regulating their little Fortnite fuckfaces.


All that aside, as I was with Gelston, I'm fine calling this one agree to disagree. I see the merit in what you're saying about parental responsibility. But loot boxes are gambling, and gambling is regulated. I feel the existing regulation should be extended to cover it, if for no other of the very valid reasons stated than "Fuck loot boxes."

"Regular" gambling is betting money on a game of chance in hopes of a bigger monetary payoff. This type of gambling isn't that. It might look similar, but again, it's no different than this:

https://www.candymachines.com/images/bulk_vending_machines/toy_capsule_vending_machines/double-stand-superpro-toy-vendor-machines.jpg

^ Other than the above being physical and loot boxes being digital, what's the actual difference between the two as far as being "gambling" goes?

[Taernath]

"Regular" gambling is betting money on a game of chance in hopes of a bigger monetary payoff. This type of gambling isn't that. It might look similar, but again, it's no different than this:

https://www.candymachines.com/images/bulk_vending_machines/toy_capsule_vending_machines/double-stand-superpro-toy-vendor-machines.jpg

^ Other than the above being physical and loot boxes being digital, what's the actual difference between the two as far as being "gambling" goes?

Among other things, the odds change the more balls are removed from those machines, while they remain the same in casinos/digital goods. There's also no real significant gain or loss for a cheap plastic toy that costs 25c, this isn't Shenmue.

[Methais]

Among other things, the odds change the more balls are removed from those machines, while they remain the same in casinos/digital goods. There's also no real significant gain or loss for a cheap plastic toy that costs 25c, this isn't Shenmue.

Other than the DR when the thing gets more empty (which I don't recall ever actually seeing, maybe they usually keep them topped off or something), the concept and the way it works is no different though. You put money in and have a tiny chance of getting the item you're hoping for. It's the same thing just on a smaller scale. If loot boxes are gambling, how is this not considered gambling?

If loot boxes only costs 25 cents per box, do you think people would still be bitching?


the odds change the more balls are removed from those machines, while they remain the same in casinos/digital goods

Unless you're playing Blackjack and can count cards.

[Stumplicker]

The concept and the way it works is no different though. You put money in and have a tiny chance of getting the item you're hoping for. It's the same thing just on a smaller scale. If loot boxes are gambling, how is this not considered gambling?

If loot boxes only costs 25 cents per box, do you think people would still be bitching?

The answer, as with all things, is money. There are significant secondary markets for gambling in games. You might be familiar with the one in the game we play as being worth hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly in a very tiny game. That's only tangentially related to the gambling that goes on here, but how many skin selling sites are there for CS:Go alone? 50? 100? How many were outed in that giant scandal because there wasn't any oversight to the system? 20 or 25, something like that?

If you're not familiar, some twitch streamers were outed as faking monumental odds and wins on a set of CS:Go sites while also secretly being the owners of said sites. A quick google search mentions that the top CS:Go skins go for around $1500. Couple that with the hundreds of thousands of people still inexplicably playing Counterstrike in 2019, and you have the potential for abuse that logically requires oversight. The same goes for e-sports teams getting banned for throwing matches or betting against themselves, or both.

Where there's a lot of money, there are a lot of assholes, and oversight needs to be put in place in the form of regulation. That's how it works for every industry.

[Taernath]

The concept and the way it works is no different though. You put money in and have a tiny chance of getting the item you're hoping for. It's the same thing just on a smaller scale. If loot boxes are gambling, how is this not considered gambling?

If loot boxes only costs 25 cents per box, do you think people would still be bitching?

Only on an extremely reductionist level are gumball machines similar to "gambling", as I mentioned earlier. I don't think there are too many Ryos spending all their allowance money on gacha games (unless it's for an achievement). Reductionist arguments tend to lose sight of the bigger picture.

[Taernath]

Just for fun, here's an example from War Thunder of the typical 'weighting' a loot box has.

Their loot boxes cost ~$2 (obfuscated through use of premium currencies). You have a chance of winning:

- Random wager (useless)
- 120k main currency (literally costs the same as if you had just bought it straight out)
- three days of premium account (dubious value)
- 300 premium currency (cost of the lootbox - a "try again" prize)
- premium vehicle

The premium vehicles are the only reason to buy these things. Luckily, the community determined long ago that the chances of getting one are so small (under ~1%) that the loot boxes are effectively useless. People still buy them though. So 2$ for an under 1% chance of getting anything of value.

Meanwhile, the gumball machines, assuming a perfect mathematical system (which it isn't), you've got like a 20% chance to get the color you want for 25c.

Is it gambling? Sure. But one is far more predatory.

[Methais]

Is it gambling? Sure. But one is far more predatory.

Fair enough. But if we're just talking about its impact on kids, which is how the whole regulation thing is being pitched, shouldn't the parents be the ones doing the regulating?

If there's some huge epidemic of a bunch of adults like Beldannon throwing all their money away on loot boxes nonstop because they have no self control, that would be a different conversation. But as far as the "gambling" impact on kids, that regulation should be coming from their parents instead of the government.

I just have a problem with most "It's for the kids" arguments when they try to skip right over the part where the parents should be involved in what their kid's doing and instead run straight to the government telling them to pass laws in place of actual parenting that would have the same end result, but without opening the door for the government to slowly creep.

[Taernath]

Fair enough. But if we're just talking about its impact on kids, which is how the whole regulation thing is being pitched, shouldn't the parents be the ones doing the regulating?

If there's some huge epidemic of a bunch of adults like Beldannon throwing all their money away on loot boxes nonstop because they have no self control, that would be a different conversation. But as far as the "gambling" impact on kids, that regulation should be coming from their parents instead of the government.

I just have a problem with most "It's for the kids" arguments when they try to skip right over the part where the parents should be involved in what their kid's doing and instead run straight to the government telling them to pass laws in place of actual parenting that would have the same end result, but without opening the door for the government to slowly creep.

For the record I'm not laser focused on the kids part of the bill, that's just how Republican lawmakers tend to promote their stuff.

I agree that parents should be involved in their kids' lives, but it's getting harder and harder to do that when Teen-rated games (like War Thunder and many others) can introduce capital g Gambling that is otherwise restricted to 18+ in real life.

[Methais]

For the record I'm not laser focused on the kids part of the bill, that's just how Republican lawmakers tend to promote their stuff.

I agree that parents should be involved in their kids' lives, but it's getting harder and harder to do that when Teen-rated games (like War Thunder and many others) can introduce capital g Gambling that is otherwise restricted to 18+ in real life.

Whatever ends up happening, I think there's a pretty good chance the industry will regulate itself before the government gets involved like they did with ESRB ratings.

I don't mind it being regulated with stuff like showing odds of each item or whatever, I'd just rather see it come from the industry itself instead of the government.

[Gelston]

For the record I'm not laser focused on the kids part of the bill, that's just how Republican lawmakers tend to promote their stuff.

I agree that parents should be involved in their kids' lives, but it's getting harder and harder to do that when Teen-rated games (like War Thunder and many others) can introduce capital g Gambling that is otherwise restricted to 18+ in real life.

Where are they getting the money though? From their parents probably. Their parents should shut it down, not the Government. Or, if their parents are alright with it, they are alright with it.

Eitherway, I think loot boxes are gay as fuck and I'd like them to disappear, but not like this.

[Stumplicker]

Eitherway, I think loot boxes are gay as fuck and I'd like them to disappear, but not like this.

Video games are an 18 billion dollar per year industry. I have doubts that you could get 100 people together to try to get Simutronics to cut back on their own microtransactions or even state their odds. How would you expect it to happen any other way than by regulation on an enormously bigger scale?

[Taernath]

Where are they getting the money though? From their parents probably. Their parents should shut it down, not the Government. Or, if their parents are alright with it, they are alright with it.

Eitherway, I think loot boxes are gay as fuck and I'd like them to disappear, but not like this.

Parents aren't able to supervise a kid 24/7, you can't chain them up in your yard anymore like in the '80s. Lots of kids have jobs, they can earn/be gifted money but not necessarily have a solid understanding of it. Capital g Gambling under 18 is also illegal, whether or not a parent personally agrees with it.

I don't think Taernath jr. will be allowed to visit you anymore.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I like loot boxes cause I have discretionary income and thus I can become superior to others via fake stuff in a fake world.

FU to all you socialists who want to take away my hard earned virtual stuff.

[Methais]

Where are they getting the money though? From their parents probably. Their parents should shut it down, not the Government. Or, if their parents are alright with it, they are alright with it.

Eitherway, I think loot boxes are gay as fuck and I'd like them to disappear, but not like this.

^

[Methais]

Video games are an 18 billion dollar per year industry. I have doubts that you could get 100 people together to try to get Simutronics to cut back on their own microtransactions or even state their odds. How would you expect it to happen any other way than by regulation on an enormously bigger scale?

How many children are playing GS though? Physical children that is, not the middle aged players with the mental capacity of a 10 year old. I'd guess less than 1% of the playerbase is under 18.

Other than DR dig though, which I'm not sure if Simu still even runs, what microtransactions are you referring to that would need odds posted? That's the only real slot machine P2W event I can think of offhand.

[Stumplicker]

Other than DR dig though, which I'm not sure if Simu still even runs, what microtransactions are you referring to that would need odds posted? That's the only real slot machine P2W event I can think of offhand.

Digging, the sewers, that whatever, heist thing, Reim chests, the dollhouse thing. Many of them are hidden behind two or three levels of alternate currency, but there are many systems even in this tiny game that are gambling oriented and offer dubious odds for dollars.

[Methais]

Digging, the sewers, that whatever, heist thing, Reim chests, the dollhouse thing. Many of them are hidden behind two or three levels of alternate currency, but there are many systems even in this tiny game that are gambling oriented and offer dubious odds for dollars.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/e932a79c1e2e412a41906e80129bbe4f/tenor.gif?itemid=12557786

[Parkbandit]

Digging, the sewers, that whatever, heist thing, Reim chests, the dollhouse thing. Many of them are hidden behind two or three levels of alternate currency, but there are many systems even in this tiny game that are gambling oriented and offer dubious odds for dollars.

So.. it's not really about "the children" it's about "adults" who can't help themselves about being addicted to "gambling" on text based words...

Not sure the US Government should be involved in supervising "adults" who have a problem.

Maybe, call 1-800-522-4700 instead?

Get some help.