5 ms·

Was it also a regression when governments around the world banned children from gambling in casinos?

by JackCh 8y ago

celticninja 8y ago
And working in coal mines.
- niij 8y ago
  Spending money on virtual games is miles away from child labor. I don't think you'll find very many people in here arguing that anti-child labor laws are a bad thing, so I find your comment a bit of a red-herring.
niij 8y ago
I guess it depends on where you draw the line on when liberty should be taken away from children (or their guardians) to make choices on what they are/are not allowed to do. Personally, I believe casinos pose a risk of not only spending money, but also exposure to much more harmful activities (drugs, prostitution, violence). These other risks have to factor into the equation, and for playing a game on a computer/phone, those risks just aren't there like they are in a casino. That's why I have a separate opinion on loot crates vs casinos. I guess what I am getting at is that loot crates can only be a waste of money, but kids already spend their money on other "wasteful" activities like purchasing video games, so why should there be any difference just because the mechanics of the game are different?
- Barrin92 8y ago
  >difference just because the mechanics of the game are different? yes, because the mechanism of gambling is addictive. (this too applies to subsets of video games as well, but at least most of them don't allow open-ended money spending) Obviously it depends on everybody's definition of liberty, but most people seem to be happy to, as a society, put limits on the consumption of goods that foster unhealthy, addictive behaviour in individuals and cause financial or personal damage. I for example don't have a problem with video games that foster creativity, problem solving and leave children with genuinely satisfying experiences. I am concerned about social media and games that only implement stick and carrot mechanisms to maximize the time children spend in front of them.
  - niij 8y ago
    I agree with you that video games can be unhealthy. But why should these crates be legislated, just because their outcome is random? Does it really present any more harm than video games and in-game purchases in general? I spent a good amount of money on pay-to-win games when I was younger (buying weapon upgrades, more materials, gold, etc), the only difference was that the exact item was listed-- no surprises. Why should anyone besides my guardian decide whether or not that counts as "unhealthy, addictive behavior"? I could have bought a nearly endless supply of these in-game items that really served no purpose just as much as people do with loot crates. Should we in-game purchases for those in-game items too, under the premise that purchasing them is unbounded, unhealthy and addictive?
    - Barrin92 8y ago
      >Should we in-game purchases for those in-game items too, under the premise that purchasing them is unbounded, unhealthy and addictive? I think that the premise is a little weaker for straight up purchases because the uncertainty associated with gambling is what makes it so exciting, but yes if we would observe that a lots of children or families are unable to manage their finances and that this negatively impacts the financial behaviour of especially young adults, sure I don't see any problem with regulating them and limiting the use of those mechanisms in videogames.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  >I believe casinos pose a risk of not only spending money, but also exposure to much more harmful activities (drugs, prostitution, violence) Yeah, as a kid it was always very annoying how everything but gambling was easily accessible. Nobody would card me when going to a bar, brothel or when buying drugs... But entering a casino? heh
  - niij 8y ago
    From the sarcasm I am assuming you disagree with me. My point is that phone games don't add to the risk being near any of any of these actually harmful (to a minor) activities. Casinos do add to that risk in some non-zero way.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

Was it also a regression when governments around the world banned children from gambling in casinos?

by JackCh 8y ago

Was it also a regression when governments around the world banned children from gambling in casinos?

celticninja 8y ago

And working in coal mines.

niij 8y ago
Spending money on virtual games is miles away from child labor. I don't think you'll find very many people in here arguing that anti-child labor laws are a bad thing, so I find your comment a bit of a red-herring.

niij 8y ago

I guess it depends on where you draw the line on when liberty should be taken away from children (or their guardians) to make choices on what they are/are not allowed to do. Personally, I believe casinos pose a risk of not only spending money, but also exposure to much more harmful activities (drugs, prostitution, violence). These other risks have to factor into the equation, and for playing a game on a computer/phone, those risks just aren't there like they are in a casino. That's why I have a separate opinion on loot crates vs casinos. I guess what I am getting at is that loot crates can only be a waste of money, but kids already spend their money on other "wasteful" activities like purchasing video games, so why should there be any difference just because the mechanics of the game are different?

Barrin92 8y ago
>difference just because the mechanics of the game are different? yes, because the mechanism of gambling is addictive. (this too applies to subsets of video games as well, but at least most of them don't allow open-ended money spending) Obviously it depends on everybody's definition of liberty, but most people seem to be happy to, as a society, put limits on the consumption of goods that foster unhealthy, addictive behaviour in individuals and cause financial or personal damage. I for example don't have a problem with video games that foster creativity, problem solving and leave children with genuinely satisfying experiences. I am concerned about social media and games that only implement stick and carrot mechanisms to maximize the time children spend in front of them.
- niij 8y ago
  I agree with you that video games can be unhealthy. But why should these crates be legislated, just because their outcome is random? Does it really present any more harm than video games and in-game purchases in general? I spent a good amount of money on pay-to-win games when I was younger (buying weapon upgrades, more materials, gold, etc), the only difference was that the exact item was listed-- no surprises. Why should anyone besides my guardian decide whether or not that counts as "unhealthy, addictive behavior"? I could have bought a nearly endless supply of these in-game items that really served no purpose just as much as people do with loot crates. Should we in-game purchases for those in-game items too, under the premise that purchasing them is unbounded, unhealthy and addictive?
  - Barrin92 8y ago
    >Should we in-game purchases for those in-game items too, under the premise that purchasing them is unbounded, unhealthy and addictive? I think that the premise is a little weaker for straight up purchases because the uncertainty associated with gambling is what makes it so exciting, but yes if we would observe that a lots of children or families are unable to manage their finances and that this negatively impacts the financial behaviour of especially young adults, sure I don't see any problem with regulating them and limiting the use of those mechanisms in videogames.
ryanlol 8y ago
>I believe casinos pose a risk of not only spending money, but also exposure to much more harmful activities (drugs, prostitution, violence) Yeah, as a kid it was always very annoying how everything but gambling was easily accessible. Nobody would card me when going to a bar, brothel or when buying drugs... But entering a casino? heh
- niij 8y ago
  From the sarcasm I am assuming you disagree with me. My point is that phone games don't add to the risk being near any of any of these actually harmful (to a minor) activities. Casinos do add to that risk in some non-zero way.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]