ah yeah bit more complicated on there. Wish Microsoft just allow keys to be traded. Really bizarre that they don't.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
What drives so many to defend lootboxes?
- Thread starter Deleted member 135
- Start date
I really dislike the tone in this conversation about loot boxes in general. People treat it as if it was a war, fueled by angry YouTubers and the "us vs. them" mindset. The government seems to be taking a look into the matter, that's the best outcome for people who dislike loot boxes for now. And yet they feel the need to hunt people down who don't mind them or don't hate them as much as they do.
If a Game is free and i have fun playing it i totally would buy some crates to support the developer.
If a Game costs 60+ i can tolerate crates if they're not predatory designed.
Shadow of Wars way of implementing crates i didn't like but i was able to ignore them and still have my fun.
Overwatch does it for cosmetics and that i can ignore.
Battlefront 2 went to far. I can't ignore their crates if i don't want to be left behind. So i canceled my preorder. These kinds of crates i can't tolerate.
At the end of the day i find lootcrates to be a sleazy way of brainwashing kids so that they don't know a world without them and stop resisting in the future. They prey on vulnerable people to please their shareholders. Enough money + a mountain of cash on top isn't enough for these people. They want all of it.
If i can't ignore it i'll buy it used in a few months and only play the campaign. There're enough other games without this garbage to enjoy. For Star Wars Fans i would say buy a cheap PC and buy the 2005 Battlefront on steam. It works, no loot boxes, has more content and better maps/modes.
If a Game costs 60+ i can tolerate crates if they're not predatory designed.
Shadow of Wars way of implementing crates i didn't like but i was able to ignore them and still have my fun.
Overwatch does it for cosmetics and that i can ignore.
Battlefront 2 went to far. I can't ignore their crates if i don't want to be left behind. So i canceled my preorder. These kinds of crates i can't tolerate.
At the end of the day i find lootcrates to be a sleazy way of brainwashing kids so that they don't know a world without them and stop resisting in the future. They prey on vulnerable people to please their shareholders. Enough money + a mountain of cash on top isn't enough for these people. They want all of it.
If i can't ignore it i'll buy it used in a few months and only play the campaign. There're enough other games without this garbage to enjoy. For Star Wars Fans i would say buy a cheap PC and buy the 2005 Battlefront on steam. It works, no loot boxes, has more content and better maps/modes.
There's plenty of proof out there. Fifa alone seems to have gotten scrutinized 3 years running with kids buying thousands of dollars/pounds worth of MTs and packs/lootboxes scandals. It was a common problem in phone games. I remember local news talking about a Smurf's game and kids racking up thousands in buying Smurf berries to grow their farm. Thing really have not changed too much in the methodology, the scandals (seeing as those Fifa ones are from the last 3 years or the recent BF2 scandal this year). It feels like we're at that junction again, for what feels like the umpteenth time and no one seems willing to educate themselves on this matter or why companies should be more accountable for their actions and how they are exploiting people. People will keep scoffing at the idea of "think of the children" and it's frustrating because they are just as much part of the spectrum of who's being exploited as pointed out by those Fifa articles.
As for your second paragraph, though not directed at me. Some have spent thousands just trying to get their favorite character in a gacha games. Gacha games it's far more common practice to spend thousands cause that's how they're designed and many of those are aimed at a wide spectrum of people from adults, teens, and even kids.
Man spends 6,000 in one night in Granblue Fantasy in Japan https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...onde-avatar-exposes-dark-side-of-japan-gaming
Not an uncommon thing to see in the west too, where a man stole 5mil from his company and spends 1 mil of it on a phone game https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...any-then-spent-1-million-on-a-cellphone-game/
Yes, but with loot boxes you have to spend more to get the same amount of things that you wanted. And with loot boxes, as the enjoyment is random, it is easy for the gambling mentality of "This box was crap. The next one has to be good." and "I got good stuff. I'm on a winning streak. It would be dumb to stop now.". So it is not the same. Loot boxes would not be so much more profitable if it were the same.
"Proof" would happen in the form of a researched overview of the entire market, not isolated examples of overspending. People overspend on all manner of dumb nonsense.
As I alluded to in my last post, this is not about lootboxes and more about the ease with which large sums of money can be spent without much thought, warning, or oversight. To what extent should platform holders and payment processors be responsible for protecting people from their own dumb impulses?
The difference between lootboxes and paid consumables is not all that great, IMO. Consumables almost always offer a greater duration of playtime, if not a competitive advantage.
The root of the problem is more that people can endlessly pay for In-Game Purchases without any cap on their spending or warnings that they are maybe spending exhorbitantly.
Do you mean timed XP bonuses, waiting time reductions and crafting materials in frustration games with consumables instead of real world items? Then, yes those are also meant to make you spent more than you would/should and should be illegal in games sold to children. They are similarly predatory, but not the same.
And yes, the ability to spent endlessly is a problem that should be regulated. It should at least be that after spending X amount of money, where X is not too high, you unlock everything that needs paying.
Well the bloomberg is one as it talks about the dark side of Japan's gaming industry and Gacha. People are spending thousands.
We don't have many of these kinds of overview articles. Plenty of these smaller events I keep linking show part of that whole though, and how people spend. Anecdotally on gacha I know plenty who have spent hundreds on them monthly and they do not like thinking about how much they have spent to get characters. It's a common thing that it's frequently joked about in plenty of gacha communities because it's absolutely normal to spend hundreds a month for that rare character. It's not even coming from mostly whales either with gacha games.
It will probably take time before we even get a decent well researched overview article on lootboxes.
The best you can do right now is learn up on the psychology of gambling. Psychologists have spoken already in a number of articles just recently on Battlefront 2 that lootboxes are gambling and follow the same psychology to make a person, whale or not, become addicted to the thrill of trying to get that one item. Something else that doesn't get brought up too is how very easy it is for people with mental disorders or disabilities to become addicted to gambling as well. ADD/ADHD for example are common mental disorders people have and one where gambling can easily become addiction. As an ADHD person myself, it can be very easy for me to drawn into something impulsively, especially if that something stimulates my brain and I can feel a moment of thrill and excitement. Gambling can be very impulsive and offer high level of thrills and stimulation.
Things like gacha and lootboxes are feeding into that psychology that many casinos use with people spending a lot a month that really racks up despite the low cost of entry. It's incredibly easy to buy without much thought as you say, because they're meant to be impulsive buys. They are made to be impulsive and addicting.
I never said i did? The people making that connection are the ones defending that loot boxes aren't gambling. That being said, are we defining gambling by the strict legal definition specific to the United States or by the broader social definition? Because i'm not really interested in debating the first one since i live in Europe and laws are inherently mutable. As for the social definition of gambling, a pack of cards can be seen as a form of low stakes gambling. And in my opinion loot boxes, depending on their implementation, can be seen as high stakes gambling. When the odds are hidden and can be manipulated server side without the player's knowledge, when there usually isn't a spending ceiling and every other part of the game design is manipulated to try and increase spending, i don't really know what else you can call it. It's gambling by any other name. And insidious.
I'm not familiar with what Funko is but i'm guessing is like a real world loot box? If so, and it is being sold to children, there is an argument for the possibility of regulation. But just like collectible cards, i would probabay consider it low stakes gambling. If you get physical items every time and these items have value and can be resold, traded, etc. i believe it mitigates the risk. It doesn't erase it though.
I disagree that most kids have a real sense of the actual value and context of money, especially on a more digital age. And i certainly disagree that most kids are aware and have the skills to fight off the constant manipulation that aggressive marketing and commerce entails. Also, not all the potential victims of these schemes are children. Let me give you an example. I work with disabled people. One person i have worked with for several months now has an extremely addictive personality, in conjunction with a development disability. It doesn't matter the object of the addiction. For a long period of time he was addicted to collecting supermarket price stickers. He went into a supermarket to do his shopping and was constantly asking the staff for stickers and sometimes even stole them. Understandably the staff saw that this was harmless and didn't particularly care about it and dismissed it jokingly. Nowadays he has abandoned stickers for copper wire. He spends hours collecting and dismantling electrical wires for the copper. That's just how his addiction works. He also loves video games. The first time i met him he proudly introduced me to his xbox collection. We spent some time talking about it and it was fun. When i asked him what he liked to play he told me Gears and Forza, and that he really wanted the new Gears but couldn't afford yet because his budget, due to his disability, had to be strictly controlled otherwise he would constantly be running out of money for food. He's unfortunate to have to struggle with his disabiliity but at the same time, it's a good thing he was born in the UK and had a system in place that has tried to help him with that struggle. Many, many people don't share the same 'luck'.
Last edited:
I sincerely believe that most couldn't give a damn about cosmetic only lootboxes - which is the case with the games above. The big difference is when they deliberately are and contain items that are game-altering. People will understandably get all riled up over the latter.
How about, 'do not try to screw over your customers/players' as a proposition. See above. It can't be that hard.
I guess this is directed at me? I was just explaining how having a disorder can actually increase the odds of a person becoming addicted to things like gambling, lootboxes or gacha and how they use similar psychology and impulsiveness to get one addicted.
I mean, I already don't overspend, I rarely participate in F2P and I refuse to play games with lootboxes in them. Though I also have medication and help to treat my ADHD.
I don't think I'll post in a lootbox thread again. I honestly can't understand why anybody would defend them. If these people genuinely can't see how potentially damaging they are, I don't think there's anything I can say or do that will change their mind.
Yeah, this thread doesn't seem to be made to actually understand why some people think loot boxes are ok, but rather to ridicule any who do. I certainly don't like them, but I can also understand that some people don't think it's that big of a deal.
Mostly I came into this threat to expand on my thoughts that I've been having that the gambling comparison is absolutely garbage. The people who are making it I don't think realize how much actual gambling addiction destroys lives.
I live in a state with a lot of casinos, and also a poorer state where gambling addiction is far more common. I have personally seen on multiple occasions how much gambling addiction can absolutely ruin peoples lives. To give one example, my best friend's father died in a car crash when he was younger. The amount paid out in life insurance (around $250,000) was given to his mother for safekeeping until he became 18. She then proceeds in the course of less than a year to gamble away every cent of that money at the casinos. That's only one example. I've known people to do some absolutely horrid things to support their gambling addiction.
That's why the gambling comparison is pretty bad. It's not only in poor taste that diminishes problems actual gambling addicts have, it also diminishes the potential harm loot boxes have by causing everyone to argue whether they are or are not gambling. I think we can all agree that some particular implementations of loot boxes are bad without trying to be dramatic about it.
A more fair comparison, I think, is that loot boxes "simulate gambling". They certainly aren't as harmful as actual gambling, but they can reinforce negative behavior in people that is more likely to lead them to actually gamble. In that respect, loot boxes are similar to family entertainment centers ala Chuck-E Cheeses or Dave & Busters, as well as (yes) collectible card games. Obviously, neither are gambling, but they both simulate that feeling when engaging in those activities.
Mostly I came into this threat to expand on my thoughts that I've been having that the gambling comparison is absolutely garbage. The people who are making it I don't think realize how much actual gambling addiction destroys lives.
I live in a state with a lot of casinos, and also a poorer state where gambling addiction is far more common. I have personally seen on multiple occasions how much gambling addiction can absolutely ruin peoples lives. To give one example, my best friend's father died in a car crash when he was younger. The amount paid out in life insurance (around $250,000) was given to his mother for safekeeping until he became 18. She then proceeds in the course of less than a year to gamble away every cent of that money at the casinos. That's only one example. I've known people to do some absolutely horrid things to support their gambling addiction.
That's why the gambling comparison is pretty bad. It's not only in poor taste that diminishes problems actual gambling addicts have, it also diminishes the potential harm loot boxes have by causing everyone to argue whether they are or are not gambling. I think we can all agree that some particular implementations of loot boxes are bad without trying to be dramatic about it.
A more fair comparison, I think, is that loot boxes "simulate gambling". They certainly aren't as harmful as actual gambling, but they can reinforce negative behavior in people that is more likely to lead them to actually gamble. In that respect, loot boxes are similar to family entertainment centers ala Chuck-E Cheeses or Dave & Busters, as well as (yes) collectible card games. Obviously, neither are gambling, but they both simulate that feeling when engaging in those activities.
Card game comparison will never hold up for me personally. Gacha and lootboxes can be like gambling and people have used them in the same way you described, like here where a man spends his wife's inheritance money on gacha games https://japantoday.com/category/national/man-splurges-wife's-inheritance-from-her-mother-on-mobile-games
Gacha and lootboxes can be just another outlet. Again, it's following the very real psychology that casinos use. Devs and pubs even use the same methods, same vocabulary, everything.
EDIT: And while people may have issues with me posting all these isolated events on gacha, MTs and lootboxes,there's just so many of them
Overwatch does it properly.
All lootboxes are cosmetic, and you don't need to buy them if you don't want to. I have zero issues with that. I don't think that's a defense of lootboxes per-se, but in Overwatch they are an extra option for people who would like to buy them. More options are always preferable.
All lootboxes are cosmetic, and you don't need to buy them if you don't want to. I have zero issues with that. I don't think that's a defense of lootboxes per-se, but in Overwatch they are an extra option for people who would like to buy them. More options are always preferable.
Whenever there's any system that makes people pay money, people will abuse it. Doubly so for systems that encourage frequent spending, such as video games and whatnot. That doesn't mean it's comparable to addictive gambling. If every person who was a problem gambler had a story written like that, I could post them every single day for the rest of my life and get nowhere near the end. Slightly over 1% of the US population has a gambling addiction, or around 3 million people. It's associated with higher rates of both alcoholism, drug abuse, and suicide. Addicts frequently lie cheat and steal to support their behavior, and routinely will spend damn near their entire paycheck at a casinos. Again, I don't have to look on the internet for stories about addictive gambling because I personally know several people affected by it. Gambling addiction is a way bigger deal than loot box games will ever be.
Now do I support regulating micro transactions so it becomes more difficult to spend that much money? Absolutely. But the way to go about that is not to make poor comparisons to highly addictive frequently life ruining behaviors. It'd be like comparing those who drink too much soda to alcoholics. They're obviously both issues, but to vastly different degrees.
Oh, and as for not taking the CCG comparison seriously, that's obviously your opinion. But it's not fair to assume that the exact same sort of behavior you see around loot boxes doesn't also exist in trading card games. That still doesn't make either gambling.
Last edited:
Don't start a thread asking why people defend something, and then in the OP say that you don't expect any answers from the people that you're calling out.
I have never bought a loot box. But it's obvious to see with any small amount of thinking why someone would purchase loot boxes. What I disagee with is that companies have seen that there are willing people that will buy lootboxes, and have tried to make them become the norm, which I hope doesn't happen. I have no issues with individuals who chose to buy them as others do.
I have never bought a loot box. But it's obvious to see with any small amount of thinking why someone would purchase loot boxes. What I disagee with is that companies have seen that there are willing people that will buy lootboxes, and have tried to make them become the norm, which I hope doesn't happen. I have no issues with individuals who chose to buy them as others do.
If lootboxes mean I get more free content like maps and new modes in a MP game then I don't mind them.
Nobody is being forced to spend money on them, and who am I to dictate how someone else spends their money, specially if it leads to me getting content for free.
Nobody is being forced to spend money on them, and who am I to dictate how someone else spends their money, specially if it leads to me getting content for free.
I don't believe they are gambling, if they are so is buying football stickers as you don't know what the pack contains and you are spending money.
I do believe the price of loot boxes needs to be regulated however and they should also never contain pay to win items as seen in Battlefront 2
I do believe the price of loot boxes needs to be regulated however and they should also never contain pay to win items as seen in Battlefront 2
I mean, lootboxes, gacha all that stuff aren't even regulated like all the other things you even compared to. Lootboxes can grow into an addiction problem just the same. I find it terrible how so many think rare instances in a smaller subset of consumer base is negligible and non-comparable to other harmful things that companies are copying from. It's still a major problem. Hell, simulated gambling has a rating and listed in Yakuza ratings. ESRB or PEGI don't see eye-to-eye with either you or me on gambling or simulated gambling of lootboxes or gacha or whatever. But it's something like in Yakuza, immediate listing!
And yes, they are trying to be like gambling
Last edited:
Why'd you respond to my post then if I'm clearly only talking about cosmetic loot boxes?
I kinda like the lootbox system, the random aspect of it. I just don't want to pay for it and I don't want developper to put stuff that is not cosmetic/optional in lootboxes.
Give me a game where you can get lootboxes without paying or playing like crazy and I'm good. Games like Destiny 2, Overwatch and COD WW2.
Give me a game where you can get lootboxes without paying or playing like crazy and I'm good. Games like Destiny 2, Overwatch and COD WW2.
But there is no other option to loot boxes. It is not an extra option, it is the only option. You can't unlock things through direct purchase or gameplay (except for a specific set of sprays that you can only get as achievements).
I think there's a basic rule in life that the more inconsequential something is, the more irate people get. Dostoevsky alluded to this when he said, and I paraphrase 'the sick society takes trivial things seriously and serious things trivially'. You could apply that principle to almost everything across social media and the news.
What about online card games like Hearthstone, do you also consider that game evil and predatory?
Also that last line of your OP shows you had no intentions to have a real conversation about this when you made the thread.
Yeah, and I agree they need to be regulated. but that doesn't mean they're gambling. Shoot, even you said they're trying to be like gambling, which is entirely different from trying to be gambling.
And loot box addiction is negligible, not just in terms of total number of people. Out of those who buy loot boxes frequently, there are I'm sure people who go way overboard. But that number is dwarfed by those out of the gambling population that have a serious addiction to that. Percentage wise, gambling is just way more likely to fuck over your life. Because you're dealing with actual money to money trades. That's not to ignore people who have issues with addiction to games, but it's important to realize if you're going to bring up the comparison that what you're comparing it to is worse in every sense of the word.
That's why it's a bad comparison. The magnitude of the scale of the problems are significantly different. Because one is not gambling, just trying to use techniques in a similar manner. As with other industries such as CCG's and family entertainment centers.
Lootboxes aren't inheritenly evil. When I look at Horizon' lootboxes, it just a minor reward for playing the game and doesn't make a big deal when you unbox one ("You got some resources. *sarcastic-whoo!*"). I mean that's all lootboxes are supposed to be, a present or a thank you for playing.
However, once you start charging for lootboxes you change the message that lootboxes bring. Instead of being a thank you, it says "Fuck you, and give me more money". Honestly, I think that people that defend paid lootboxes are suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome as I don't see how a progression system designed to manipulate players into buying more lootboxes, whether it's cosmetic-only, gameplay, or a mixture of both, is good for anyone.
However, once you start charging for lootboxes you change the message that lootboxes bring. Instead of being a thank you, it says "Fuck you, and give me more money". Honestly, I think that people that defend paid lootboxes are suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome as I don't see how a progression system designed to manipulate players into buying more lootboxes, whether it's cosmetic-only, gameplay, or a mixture of both, is good for anyone.
Heh, that's "fun". But I think there's also the aspect of a consumer base stuggling to get to terms with realising they aren't the dominant force in a market anymore. This is very apparent in threads when people write "but who buys loot boxes anyway?" or in every Pokémon GO thread "but the game is dead!". Some people have no interest in the facts and instead want to rage this "war" because they don't like something. They watch YouTubers telling them what they want to hear and share those views without considering the business side of things or just other arguments that are based on facts. I get that video games are the most important hobby for some (me included) but some reactions in general about this subject are just childish.
And again, the current situation is pretty much the best people who are against loot boxes in general can hope for at this point. The government is looking into it. This could end up being nothing, it could end up ending loot boxes ot it could end up backfiring spectacularly. Some don't realise what regulation can mean but that's neither here or there. The government is on the case. Something will happen. That's progress.
But going out of their way to look for people who are ok with loot boxes, which is the majority, just to call them brainwashed zombies and throw YouTube videos at them is just sad. I'm surprised this kind of OP is allowed on here, to be honest.
That's about the general idea of loot boxes, though. I think that people who are generally ok with them agree that EA took it way too far in Battlefront 2.
Last edited:
Quite simple: I never paid for lootboxes, yet they provide me free content being delivered for a far longer time than it would usually be.
And I used to pay to DLC, it was very bad because if you didn't the online community without the update would die rather quickly. And if you did, eventually it would also die because with every DLC release only a fraction of the playing userbase would purchase.
So it's simple math: More content and a more thriving community for less money, because of the few that spends money on it.
As for the concerns about children spending too much I honestly think that's an issue for the parents of the kid. If they don't want their kids to spend tons of money on games than don't give them the means to do so.
Edit: There in fact some games I wished the devs had implemented loot boxes. Gigantic for example, had it featured something like that it would have probably generated way more money than the route they went of practically giving everything with minimal grinding and the guys would still be around.
And I used to pay to DLC, it was very bad because if you didn't the online community without the update would die rather quickly. And if you did, eventually it would also die because with every DLC release only a fraction of the playing userbase would purchase.
So it's simple math: More content and a more thriving community for less money, because of the few that spends money on it.
As for the concerns about children spending too much I honestly think that's an issue for the parents of the kid. If they don't want their kids to spend tons of money on games than don't give them the means to do so.
Edit: There in fact some games I wished the devs had implemented loot boxes. Gigantic for example, had it featured something like that it would have probably generated way more money than the route they went of practically giving everything with minimal grinding and the guys would still be around.
Doesn't really answer the question, 'market research' isn't infallible, companies would never make missteps in marketing in that case.
I totally consider MTG Boosters to be both gambling and an abusive consumer practice perfectly comparable to loot boxes. I do think they should also see increased regulation and scrutiny.
This is a good time to remember that there are many card games without this abusive system. Netrunner, which is probably the best game Garfield designed, has no random boosters in its current incarnation and it's a totally fantastic game.
This is a good time to remember that there are many card games without this abusive system. Netrunner, which is probably the best game Garfield designed, has no random boosters in its current incarnation and it's a totally fantastic game.
I mean, Fifa's Ultimate Team packs have made EA 800 million dollars which is why we're seeing that stuff pop up in more of their games like NFS Payback and the recent controversy with Battlefront 2. It can only be expected to grow further with EA's plans for games as a service model. Stuff like this may be seen as negligible now, but if it continues it will not be. That's why I want it regulated before it gets even worse. CCGs at least have the benefit of telling you the odds, narrowing down the types of cards earned reducing fluff and undesirables, dupes are necessary for deck building so less lose states. You also have options to buy full pre-made decks and or buy singles so you're guaranteed a specific card you want. Lootboxes having absolutely none of this, not even the bare minimum of giving odds or percentages. It becomes a gamble because there's no way to obtain an item otherwise so you wind up spending a couple of bucks here and there until you spent several hundred or more and not get that specific item you wanted. Plenty got burned trying to get that Mercy Witch skin in Overwatch during Halloween, reddit stories of spending hundreds during the event and not getting the things they really wanted.
In the end it will be for the law to decide and so far legislators and some gambling commissions believe lootboxes are a form of gambling and I also side with them. Funny thing too happening in Australia. Victoria's gambling commision believes that lootboxes are gambling. Meanwhile Queensland Australia, the place that has a bunch of pubs, clubs and slot machines does not think it's gambling.
Let me get this straight.
You believe that literally hundreds of data analysts and a literally unfathomable amount of data is wrong.
And you believe you are right.
Because that's how you feel.
And yet those hundreds of analysts and unfathomable amount of data couldn't predict the shitstorm happening right now. Go figure.
Companies make mistakes all the time.
You say this like this data and exactly what it entails and describes what consumers at large is available for me to disprove it.
No, I don't think the market demanded the publisher arms race in visuals on this scale.
You're saying that all AAA publishers made the same mistake at the same time. What a hell of a coincidence.
And you can think what you want. I'd rather believe that market research has informed the decisions made by the execs and has shaped the market to be like it is today. You can see that in many different markets as well. Like the F2P Mobile market or the movie market. Consumers demand better, bigger, prettier all the time.
So true. A lot of people here, including OP need to grow up. This is the exact sort of nonsense that started to weigh down discussion on GAF over the recently months and unfortunately it looks like ResetEra is going to be a continuation of that.
I personally don't like lootboxes and have paid for no other microtransaction than the space cats skin pack in CoD ghosts (which is probably the main reason why I still don't uninstall the game) but, for me, micro transactions and lootboxes are as valid game design choice as a single player open world RPG. I stand for developers and publishers making the game in the way they want. Also it seems to be a model that people are fond of as it is growing.
What I entirely oppose is to the idea of banning lootboxes/microtransactions in games based on the protection of children. If children are the problem, parental control is the solution. Just informing parents that a game contains microtransactions is enough for they to take preventive measures. It does only need the information given by the store front, doesn't need the involvement of ESRB and even less from the State. Needles to say that I despise the inclement of the State.
I wouldn't like to not being able to buy another space cats skin pack (or having it more expensive) because some people don't like microtransactions or someone can't seem to be aware of what his children are playing.
What I entirely oppose is to the idea of banning lootboxes/microtransactions in games based on the protection of children. If children are the problem, parental control is the solution. Just informing parents that a game contains microtransactions is enough for they to take preventive measures. It does only need the information given by the store front, doesn't need the involvement of ESRB and even less from the State. Needles to say that I despise the inclement of the State.
I wouldn't like to not being able to buy another space cats skin pack (or having it more expensive) because some people don't like microtransactions or someone can't seem to be aware of what his children are playing.
Movies are either to understand because it's all visual, but I think video games are more complicated than that. Games seem more complicated in my view.
Lots of things are potentially damaging. Alcohol for example. Significantly damaging. Can and does kill. Are you suggesting that anyone who chooses to drink in moderation and defends their right to do so is wrong, because for others alcohol is potentially damaging?
There are some weird arguments on this. Its good for regulators to take a look at the practices and see what might need action taking.
But I find some of the "loot boxes are bad anyone who tries to imply some subtlety in any argument is wrong" type of stuff particularly unpleasant.