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

[Stanley Burrell]

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.