Not related to the thread but Fortnite skins are indeed serious in classrooms.
www.polygon.com
The news you quoted, and many others, clearly show it has been "a problem" for many adults, so I think it merits a more elaborate response than "what of it?".
I think that's merely your personal opinion. When a business tactic involves duping people out of their money, I certainly think that it requires governments to explore regulatory legislation. (Whether this bill is the right way to go about it is a different matter. Like I've mentioned, I'm not a fan of limiting the ban to products marketed at minors, for example.) But maybe this is also just an EU vs US thing (assuming you're from the US). You do tend to have somewhat different attitudes when it comes to regulating corporations over there.
This bill as proposed could mean that every adult gamer has to prove their age, similar to the incoming anti-porn law in Britain, which is a privacy issue. It could mean that selling fast cars is illegal (but legal irl) in games like GTAV, and that's the revenue generation which funds years of post-launch content distributed to everyone as free updates. It could mean no discounts on bulk purchases (but legal irl) of things like Shark Cards or V-bucks, which currently offer consumers savings up to 35%. Note this bill would do nothing to curb kids addiction to games like Fortnite, and the side effects of this bill could be that it becomes more expensive to buy skins in that game. It could mean games that many users enjoy responsibly are no longer available in their region. It could mean the end of a hugely popular game mode like Ultimate Team, even though the real-life model it's based on is totally legal while also allowing people to cash in their RNG wins for actual money. It could mean price raises or other negative consequences due to the reduction of revenue streams which have offset the lack of game price raises in over 13 years, while e.g. movie ticket prices are up about 40% since 2006. All of that despite a lack of proof that it's creating gamblers, or that kids spending is a serious issue. See my earlier post about the safeguards built into PSN for instance.
It doesn't matter what's posted, he won't put any onus on the companies designing these predatory practices. Hopefully the government strictly handles this because the industry has beyond failed at their job.
That's the most you can come up with after searching for it? That again should tell you it's not a big problem. Assuming that anecdote is true, that's a parent not taking advantage of the available console safeguards, e.g. requiring a passkey for each purchase, while leaving their 3-year old unsupervised. And it looks like they got a refund, so problem solved no need for Big Govt. Also, did the purchase have anything to do with this bill? You talk about how many experiences should count, well it damn well better be more than 1 anonymous experience. Do you honestly believe that if something, it can be anything, is enjoyed by millions and then one anon poster on Reddit writes about something bad, that Govt should ban that thing? Come on. The bar should be much higher than that. Surely you agree.
It would have to be an AO rating, which would be amazing. This crap would stop real quick.
Those are all examples of bad faith posting from you.
No goalposts moved. Here was my first post in this topic and I have been consistent. Produce studies, not one anonymous poster writing about a problem he could have easily prevented happening himself and the company refunded him anyway. How on earth is that grounds for a Govt ban? Also btw, you still haven't clarified whether the purchase made in that case was even applicable to this bill and this topic.
You are being disingenuous now. It's ironic that you complain about your question not being answered, which it already had been answered in multiple posts including linked above, while you dodged answering or even agreeing with this:
Why are you talking about alcohol? We know that contributes to bad health, car accidents, and so on. There have been studies, and it has been proven. That's the point. Regarding this bill to save the children, the biggest applicable study afaik is the Australian one which concluded with recommended further study, and one of their sources was a report covering over 7.5K adults (no children) and they concluded:
This. The industry just never regulated itself and now we have this bill. I wouldn't be shocked to see this pass.
Those are all lies and you know it. Once again, bad faith posting from you.
Links to my posts where I said that please. Otherwise, apologize.
->
"nobody has a problem with it" and "it hasn't even been shown to be a problem for adults" both mean lack of victim here.
Context. That entire post which they took a few words from:
And the context doesn't change a lick of the meaning of the first, because the beginning of the sentence is about ignoring something else, and the end is about Belgium's law.
And I repeat, "relative lack of conversation" does means people aren't talking about it. The "relative" does not protect you from a "noticeable" amount of conversation, as "relative lack" is understood as "negligible".
I mean even in context its even worse, because you try to use "one small country" IE belgium but fail to mention that fucking CHINA, the second largest economy in the world, also outlaws exploitative lootboxes (You cannot buy them with money, you must offer the player the ability to purchase the items in a store, you are allowed to give them out as in game rewards for playtime or bonuses). The UK regulatory committee on gambling basically said "We think lootboxes are gambling but cant do anything until parliament actually codifies it as such and after that we'll start drooping hammers." Australia's position is basically "Well if more studies can link lootboxes to gambling behavior we'll act" while having a clear consensus that gambling shouldn't be allowed on ANY GAME thats not exclusively for adults.
China - this recent article from a CEO in the business words it differently from you. He says there's a daily limit of purchased lootboxes a player can open, up to 50, and that odds of the desired item must increase with each opening. So it's regulated but not illegal.
Then how come they don't do that? Is it because it would lead to less people getting addicted to them?
Because to be the same thing, it'd need to be predetermined and to be only available in physical stores and limited by that physical production.
Well, well. Is everyone still cool with welcoming in Big Govt now?
