Chris Lee (loot box bills): "ESA lobbyists roaming the halls of the state capitol here as we speak"

Zelas · Feb 22, 2018

Mcjmetroid said:
Jesus Christ I will never understand the corporate defenders/apologists in these threads. I'm not saying everyone has to be have the same opinion but let's get a few things straight.

Loot boxes are bad.. not good bad.. we should all as gamers be united on this front.The gaming industry survived just fine without them and it would be fine without them again. We the gamers are the ones that are being exploited here. It doesn't matter HOW we got here but we're here and it's time for legislation.
It can only be a good thing.

As far as that politician telling a "lie". He exaggerated. We have listened for years as games were been described as 'killing simulators" and now the one time a politician seems to be on our side to do something good for the industry you wanna get into technicalities about whether he was lying or not or what defines an online casino? Wtf?

On these kinds of forums you will literally have someone to defend anything.

Every implementation of paid loot boxes isnt bad. When the majority of consumers disagree with you its time to come up with a better option than just "banning lootboxes."

If people are concerned about children or addiction then there are measures that can be implemented, just like other industries. There is no justification for treating games differently. Video games aren't so different that the only solution is banning.

Now, I dont know whether you agree that there are alternatives to outright banning, but there are people who do think age restrictions or transparency measures will kill paid loot boxes altogether, if they cant be banned straight up. Will people be satisfied if that doesn't turn out? In a world where consumers want more without having to pay for it, and paid loot boxes are making that a reality, what's going to be the argument against them then?

Beyond the statistics that say people like loot boxes, that's probably why you see many people defending them. Because so many are hell bent on such an unrealistic and unwanted alternative.

Armaros · Feb 22, 2018

Zelas said:
Every implementation of paid loot boxes isnt bad. When the majority of consumers disagree with you its time to come up with a better option than just "banning lootboxes."

If people are concerned about children or addiction then there are measures that can be implemented, just like other industries. There is no justification for treating games differently. Video games aren't so different that the only solution is banning.

Now, I dont know whether you agree that there are alternatives to outright banning, but there are people who do think age restrictions or transparency measures will kill paid loot boxes altogether, if they cant be banned straight up. Will people be satisfied if that doesn't turn out? In a world where consumers want more without having to pay for it, and paid loot boxes are making that a reality, what's going to be the argument against them then?

Beyond the statistics that say people like loot boxes, that's probably why you see many people defending them. Because so many are hell bent on such an unrealistic and unwanted alternative.

Besides the fact that the entire industry is hellbent on avoiding doing even a tiny amount of self-policing?

Or do you seriously think they are not marketing lockboxes to children as well?

Or manipulate odds and have so many hidden percentages and systems that would make the highest margin casino envious?

elyetis · Feb 22, 2018

Zelas said:
Every implementation of paid loot boxes isnt bad. When the majority of consumers disagree with you its time to come up with a better option than just "banning lootboxes."

If people are concerned about children or addiction then there are measures that can be implemented, just like other industries. There is no justification for treating games differently. Video games aren't so different that the only solution is banning.

Now, I dont know whether you agree that there are alternatives to outright banning, but there are people who do think age restrictions or transparency measures will kill paid loot boxes altogether, if they cant be banned straight up. Will people be satisfied if that doesn't turn out? In a world where consumers want more without having to pay for it, and paid loot boxes are making that a reality, what's going to be the argument against them then?

Beyond the statistics that say people like loot boxes, that's probably why you see many people defending them. Because so many are hell bent on such an unrealistic and unwanted alternative.

Statistic show that the majority of american are for the death penalty, it doesn't make it right.

That being said I'm not asking for a lootbox ban, regulation should be enough ( same as gambling regarding the age limitation, showing odds mandatory ).

We are in a world where poor worker condition make smartphone less expensive, so yay let's not argue for a change there either.

Zelas · Feb 22, 2018

Armaros said:
Besides the fact that the entire industry is hellbent on avoiding doing even a tiny amount of self-policing?

Or do you seriously think they are not marketing lockboxes to children as well?

Or manipulate odds and have so many hidden percentages and systems that would make the highest margin casino envious?

elyetis said:
Statistic show that the majority of american are for the death penalty, it doesn't make it right.

That being said I'm not asking for a lootbox ban, regulation should be enough ( same as gambling regarding the age limitation, showing odds mandatory ).

We are in a world where poor worker condition make smartphone less expensive, so yay let's not argue for a change there either.

I never said I disagree with action being taken on those specific points. By the industry itself or the government. I'm arguing that action there isn't going to be the end of loot boxes and as such likely won't be good enough for those who want them 100% out of gaming. Again:

Zelas said:
In a world where consumers want more without having to pay for it, and paid loot boxes are making that a reality, what's going to be the argument against them then?

And a death penalty comparison?? The act of purchasing a loot box isn't inherently immoral.