Markets should not be above ethicsThe market has spoken, and lootboxes will continue to do well even with this type of restriction
It strikes me as a pretty willful mischaracterization, made with the knowledge that people will hear it and construe the situation as something far more nefarious and damaging. No better than when Jack Thompson referred to FPS games as "murder simulators".Yes, a little bit of hyperbole to make a point clearly invalidates everything else he has done including actually writing these bills and having them enter the discussion.
It strikes me as a pretty willful mischaracterization, made with the knowledge that people will construe the situation as something far more nefarious and damaging. No better than when Jack Thompson referred to FPS games as "murder simulators".
I really don't think this is true. The push to get the ESRB to rate loot boxes as gambling was just because that specific tag gets an AO rating (effectively making it illegal in the States).
To say it another way, if the ESRB said it was gambling but then moved gambling from AO to M, I don't think the response would be "cool."
It strikes me as a pretty willful mischaracterization, made with the knowledge that people will hear it and construe the situation as something far more nefarious and damaging. No better than when Jack Thompson referred to FPS games as "murder simulators".
Public Service Announcement: An analogy is not an equivalenceYup, exactly the same. Highlighting predatory money schemes around addiction with a peppering of highly cynical/critical language is exactly the same as implying games cause people to kill others.
Potential losses at a casino are far far greater, by orders of magnitude. Being able to "earn your money back" is a gambler's fallacy that only makes the addiction hook into them harder. The more you lose, the more difficult it becomes to break even.I dunno it seems pretty fair. I mean Battlefront is WORSE than an online casino. In an online casino you has a chance to get your money back or make money... In Battlefront you get virtual goods that will be taken away by EA when they see fit.
It strikes me as a pretty willful mischaracterization, made with the knowledge that people will hear it and construe the situation as something far more nefarious and damaging. No better than when Jack Thompson referred to FPS games as "murder simulators".
You can think the guy is doing good work, but just don't claim he's above sensationalism or obfuscation. When he says something that's intended to deceive, overstate, or confuse the issue, don't handwave it away with "Oh, that's just a little bit of hyperbole."
Potential losses at a casino are far far greater, by orders of magnitude. Being able to "earn your money back" is a gambler's fallacy that only makes the addiction hook into them harder. The more you lose, the more difficult it becomes to break even.
so allow people to buy in game currency that they then spend on loot boxes. Tech they will not be spending real money on loot boxes
Cell phone games usually aren't rated by the ESRB, so you would have a weird dichotomy there.Though this probably would mean an M rating, punishing loot box games with an AO rating would 100% end the practice then & there.
Last time I checked Steam, Appstore and Playstore have IAP labels. "In-App Purchases" and "Offers in-app purchases". Like does this legislation change anything?California introduced legislation regarding video game microtransactions today, as well. Not strictly loot boxes, but spending real-world currency to unlock content. All it would require is the manufacturer to put a notice on the physical box.
Tuesday's session has completed. In the end, HB2727 somehow resurrected itself and passed third reading, and is now headed to the Senate. SB3024 and SB3025 also both passed third reading, and are headed to the House. For the next 4-6 weeks, the bills will go through the same set of votes, readings and committee hearings, but in the opposite side of the Legislature from where they originated. So, come back later.
On an interesting note, HB2727 and SB3024 were amended in committee to not take effect until July 1, 2050 to "facilitate further discussion". If that start date isn't changed before the full Legislature votes on the final bills, those two bills are effectively defanged and useless. SB3025, the Senate version of the bill requiring disclosure of lootboxes, was not amended with the 2050 start date so that bill is still firmly in play.
HB2686 is dead for this year.
Yup, exactly the same. Highlighting predatory money schemes around addiction with a peppering of highly cynical/critical language is exactly the same as implying games cause people to kill others.
Well this is pleasant news! I was worried things would be dead in the water after the last update that the bills failed to pass. I think this is worthy of a new thread to be honest.
amended in committee to not take effect until July 1, 2050 to "facilitate further discussion".
This is only the halfway point of the session, and a lot can happen between now and the end. If any of the bills pass, then I think we'll need a new thread.
This won't stop anything, even if everything passes.
What you will see is an obfuscation of the randomization instead of tying it directly to point of purchase.
Designers will just pass the randomized elements to acquisition or create randomization in access of elements with standardized prices.
There's no stopping this train.
Edit - to expand on this, imagine a scenario where you can face off against a powerful enemy by buying a token. The difficulty of the enemy is randomized, and based on how fast you can beat him, you get a better reward. His health is directly dictated by similar drop rates to loot boxes.
Or even simpler - the enemy is the same every time, but he has a random chance of dropping an item. You are paying for a standardized item (FIGHT CHANCE), but the payout on completion ("skill based" in the loosest of terms) is random.
You could even do this by matching players up against other players based on their skill level. It's "randomized" how hard your opponent is, but you only get so many chances to do so and win rewards. If you want more chances, pay up.
This will only make things more insidious.
In which case people will turn away form these games as they increasingly grow more and more into money farms instead of entertainment and big budget development will start to collapse under the weight of its own inflated budgets. I'd personally welcome such an industry re-calibration. I think its frankly been long overdue. These large publishers currently exercise far too much control over the industry at large.
I mean, that's what pro-loot box people say about the current situation . That there's no need for regulation because the market will decide what's good or bad.
But people say this legislation is necessary because loot boxes are beyond market forces because they prey on psychological weaknesses and exploit children. I'm saying passing this legislation won't stop the predatory practices, it'll obfuscate them and make them worse.
I'm not saying that no one should care about the exploition, I'm saying that this likely won't help. Pandora's box is wide open.