3 ms·

> The Dutch and Belgian government quite literally are saying that you can't though. Of course, in practice it just means Dutch and Belgian players will pretend

by Fnoord 4y ago

> The Dutch and Belgian government quite literally are saying that you can't though. Of course, in practice it just means Dutch and Belgian players will pretend they're from another European country via VPN. I am a Dutch player who played D1, D2, D3. I won't play Diablo Immortal. First of all the condescending comment about phones as well as the launch of D3 which made whatever this game is quite sour. Then they made it a reskin by NetEase; it only uses Blizzard IP it isn't developed by Blizzard. Then they made it P2W, as this item proves. > I'm not sure if you're saying this in bad faith, are ignorant of gambling laws or truly believe this. If you were to regulate video games with gambling laws then that video game ceases to exist. Of course they can work around it by not having P2W. Its that simple, really. How about make a damn good game and sell it? I can only hope more countries start regulating crap like this, as should happen with ML/AI ('algorithms') as well.

Aerroon 4y ago
>Of course they can work around it by not having P2W. Its that simple, really. How about make a damn good game and sell it? Because the average player is not going to pay $100 for a game. Also, now you're lumping P2W and gambling together. But all of this is beside the point. If you do not like games like this then you shouldn't play them. I want to still be able to play the games I choose. I don't need the government to try to "protect me" from this. Do I like that games do this? No, but I can always choose not to play them. If people chose to not play them then they wouldn't monetize games like this, but it's pretty apparent that people are okay with this. You want to use force via the government to stop those people from doing something they want to do and using "it's for your own good" as an excuse. Games will absolutely shut out countries where they feel that handing regulation is too much for them. This will include games that don't conflict with the regulation, but it's simply too risky to figure out whether they do or not.
- Fnoord 4y ago
  As someone who spend thousands of EUR on MtG in my youth and who's wife had a father who was an alcoholic I'd like to disagree with 'I don't need the government to try to "protect me" from this.' USA is also currently in an opioid crisis. This is both P2W and gambling, and its the combination which is the issue. RNG alone isn't an issue. Also, it is aimed at youth, who not yet can deal with gambling. How come a country where you may drive at age 16 and drink at age 21 doesn't care about digital gambling via the internet? The argument is the same about other things like heroin, gambling, LSD, etc. The law is there to protect the people. If you want to break the law, then you are on your own, with all the repercussions which may come with it including: that your Battle.net account gets disabled/banned, that Blizzard or the player gets a fine, that you become addicted, that you have to pretend you are from another jurisdiction in order to play it, that you move to a different jurisdiction, or vote for different politicians in your jurisdiction. There's plenty of options for you to influence the current outcome. > If people chose to not play them then they wouldn't monetize games like this, but it's pretty apparent that people are okay with this. No, it is not "pretty apparent". Stop projecting. > You want to use force via the government to stop those people from doing something they want to do and using "it's for your own good" as an excuse. Yes, such is the basis of law. > Games will absolutely shut out countries where they feel that handing regulation is too much for them. This will include games that don't conflict with the regulation, but it's simply too risky to figure out whether they do or not. That's fine, I'm not missing out, hopefully more countries follow suit and may it provide incentive to change this rotten to the core industry.

by Fnoord 4y ago

Aerroon 4y ago

>Of course they can work around it by not having P2W. Its that simple, really. How about make a damn good game and sell it? Because the average player is not going to pay $100 for a game. Also, now you're lumping P2W and gambling together. But all of this is beside the point. If you do not like games like this then you shouldn't play them. I want to still be able to play the games I choose. I don't need the government to try to "protect me" from this. Do I like that games do this? No, but I can always choose not to play them. If people chose to not play them then they wouldn't monetize games like this, but it's pretty apparent that people are okay with this. You want to use force via the government to stop those people from doing something they want to do and using "it's for your own good" as an excuse. Games will absolutely shut out countries where they feel that handing regulation is too much for them. This will include games that don't conflict with the regulation, but it's simply too risky to figure out whether they do or not.

Fnoord 4y ago
As someone who spend thousands of EUR on MtG in my youth and who's wife had a father who was an alcoholic I'd like to disagree with 'I don't need the government to try to "protect me" from this.' USA is also currently in an opioid crisis. This is both P2W and gambling, and its the combination which is the issue. RNG alone isn't an issue. Also, it is aimed at youth, who not yet can deal with gambling. How come a country where you may drive at age 16 and drink at age 21 doesn't care about digital gambling via the internet? The argument is the same about other things like heroin, gambling, LSD, etc. The law is there to protect the people. If you want to break the law, then you are on your own, with all the repercussions which may come with it including: that your Battle.net account gets disabled/banned, that Blizzard or the player gets a fine, that you become addicted, that you have to pretend you are from another jurisdiction in order to play it, that you move to a different jurisdiction, or vote for different politicians in your jurisdiction. There's plenty of options for you to influence the current outcome. > If people chose to not play them then they wouldn't monetize games like this, but it's pretty apparent that people are okay with this. No, it is not "pretty apparent". Stop projecting. > You want to use force via the government to stop those people from doing something they want to do and using "it's for your own good" as an excuse. Yes, such is the basis of law. > Games will absolutely shut out countries where they feel that handing regulation is too much for them. This will include games that don't conflict with the regulation, but it's simply too risky to figure out whether they do or not. That's fine, I'm not missing out, hopefully more countries follow suit and may it provide incentive to change this rotten to the core industry.