8 ms·

It's insane that we are permitting tactics that are already sketchy when applied to gambling addicts to be used to target teenagers and other young individuals

by TimPC 3y ago

It's insane that we are permitting tactics that are already sketchy when applied to gambling addicts to be used to target teenagers and other young individuals who are still developing. We are enabling behaviours in video games that will shape lifelong addictions and other huge problems all because we are unwilling to call loot boxes gambling because of half-baked analogies to opening a pack of baseball cards.

braymundo 3y ago
Netherlands and Belgium are ahead of the curve, though.
- maccard 3y ago
  No, they're not. For all intents and purposes the industry has moved on from loot boxes. The top grossing mobile games aren't using them, and AAA/F2P games have for the most part moved on from them. There's a few holdouts (notably Fifa Ultimate Team), but everyone else has moved on. The article does a really good job of explaining what the _actual_ model is now.
revscat 3y ago
[flagged]
- ambicapter 3y ago
  Why isn't everything legal then?
- appletrotter 3y ago
  We live in a society with rules and regulations.
- lukas099 3y ago
  Maybe, but there has to be a limit to how far we expect humans to override their programming. With technology and the full force of the market behind probing our weaknesses, there's a good chance we will reach that limit soon.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  You understand that when you are free you can be free to collectively regulate too.
- NikolaNovak 3y ago
  My very general response to that very general statement is: choices and decisions can be made collectively as well. At their best, regulations ARE exactly that - bunch of us getting together and saying "well THAT sure sucked; let's not make THAT mistake again; let's do better choices in the future". It's us saying that we are capable of learning and we don't have to make every.stupid.mistake.over.and.over.again individually. We will probably also agree very quickly on what regulations are at their very worst, or even at their median / mediocre! :). And then it becomes an intelligent discussion on where we each draw the line and what are good ratios and compromises. But I have limited respect for drawing the line at either plus or minus infinity and pretending it's a meaningful statement or a good principle to live by :-/ [if your post was sarcasm, apologies/nm; easy to miss those online]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
veave 3y ago
What's insane is that some want to replace the irresponsible parents of those teenagers with a nanny state.
- doctorwho42 3y ago
  Now that's some hyperbole, government regulations are some of the best tools we have in creating a reasonable society that is desirable to live in. For example, your nanny state comment could easily be modified to describe chemical waste dumping. "What's insane is that some want to replace the irresponsible CEO's and C-suite execs of those workers with a nanny state." Well fucking hell yes I do, I want the government to have to power to ruin companies if they negligently damaged or destroyed the environment we all share, for profit, stupidity or laziness. Government regulations are the only reason we the workers have it as good as we do today. 5 day work week, EPA restrictions, etc.
  - veave 3y ago
    You opt into gambling, you don't opt into having your water polluted Teenagers shouldn't be gambling, their parents should be responsible for that, but some don't want to rear their children.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - TimPC 3y ago
      Sure but when teenagers shouldn't be actually gambling we have age restrictions in casinos and levy fines/revoke licenses if they violate those restrictions. Meanwhile, we allow this thing that pretty much everyone agrees is gambling, right down to being able to cash out winnings at a profit and we want to say "only your parents can stop you". How about putting loot boxes behind an 18+ restriction, and requiring id checks like casinos do? Is that not nanny state for actually gambling but is nanny state for thing almost identical to gambling?
      - 3y ago
chongli 3y ago
Simply put: technology is one step ahead of the law. All of these ‘tricks’ should be regulated as gambling for the same reasons gambling is regulated: they’re addictive, they disproportionately affect vulnerable groups, they extract large sums of money from these groups and enrich some large companies in the process. When viewed in that light, perhaps even existing gambling regulations don’t go far enough because there are plenty of people who suffer from gambling addiction and even ruin their lives in the process. As for the people who oppose all of this regulation on the basis of individual freedom (and perhaps don’t care about gambling addicts), here is the issue: externalities. People with severe gambling addiction can do tremendous damage to society as well as enable and enrich organized crime groups. It’s well documented that people with gambling addiction can and do commit thefts and even murders to fuel their addiction. Now you might also argue that regulation does not prevent gambling addiction but that is only evidence against the current set of regulations, not proof that all regulation is ineffective. Trying to determine the right regulations to minimize the harms of gambling addiction while balancing personal freedoms is the hard part of policy debates.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  > Simply put: technology is one step ahead of the law No, lawmakers are choosing to keep their eyes shut.
rufus_foreman 3y ago
>> we are unwilling to call loot boxes gambling because of half-baked analogies to opening a pack of baseball cards Here's your odds for opening a pack of baseball cards: https://www.topps.com/media/pdf/odds/2023ToppsSeries2Odds.pdf https://www.topps.com/media/pdf/odds/2023ToppsSeries2Odds.pd... Looks like the rarest insert is 2022 SILVER SLUGGER AWARD WINNERS CARDS PLATINUM at 1 in 1,036,176 packs.
Aerroon 3y ago
With the freedom to choose you are allowed to make bad choices. Try to remember this in the future if you ever think, "Why is this thing illegal? That's silly. People should be free to make their own choices!" Because this kind of reasoning is exactly how that other thing and all its derivatives got banned. Eg drugs and the war on drugs. Also, those analogies are not half-baked. They're spot on.
- Spivak 3y ago
  The war on drugs has very little to do with drugs so this is a bad analogy. So long as you are white and don't look poor you can do whatever drugs you want and the law won't get in your way. I have literally done a bump of K with an on duty cop at a music festival. The push for legalization isn't about people making their own choices, it's because it's not possible for the government to have this power and not abuse it and harm reduction via regulated production (taking away choices, clearly) and medical supervision. This argument doesn't apply to video game gambling. Nobody is getting their hit of digital lootboxes from their dealer and the government isn't arresting players for Fortnite possession. You can have all the thrill of random drops without it being tied to your credit card, there are still recovering WoW addicts. If people en masse suddenly started spending ruinous amounts of money on Yu-Gi-Oh that's a pretty strong case against them. Regulation follows the harm not the principles.
  - Aerroon 3y ago
    >So long as you are white and don't look poor you can do whatever drugs you want and the law won't get in your way. I have literally done a bump of K with an on duty cop at a music festival. I hope you know that US drug policy has basically been pushed onto the entirety of the rest of the world. Eg the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961. This means that when you talk about drug policy it's not about US racial politics, it's about the entire world. So when you say "as long as you're white" it's meaningless. >This argument doesn't apply to video game gambling. Nobody is getting their hit of digital lootboxes from their dealer and the government isn't arresting players for Fortnite possession. You can have all the thrill of random drops without it being tied to your credit card, there are still recovering WoW addicts. And you can have all of this without the government intervening either. That's the whole point - government intervention is what screwed all of it up. It's not intentional, but it's just a side effect that seems to always pop up whenever the government throws around bans that are intended to impact regular people.

by TimPC 3y ago

braymundo 3y ago

Netherlands and Belgium are ahead of the curve, though.

maccard 3y ago
No, they're not. For all intents and purposes the industry has moved on from loot boxes. The top grossing mobile games aren't using them, and AAA/F2P games have for the most part moved on from them. There's a few holdouts (notably Fifa Ultimate Team), but everyone else has moved on. The article does a really good job of explaining what the _actual_ model is now.

revscat 3y ago

[flagged]

ambicapter 3y ago
Why isn't everything legal then?
appletrotter 3y ago
We live in a society with rules and regulations.
lukas099 3y ago
Maybe, but there has to be a limit to how far we expect humans to override their programming. With technology and the full force of the market behind probing our weaknesses, there's a good chance we will reach that limit soon.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tsunamifury 3y ago
You understand that when you are free you can be free to collectively regulate too.
NikolaNovak 3y ago
My very general response to that very general statement is: choices and decisions can be made collectively as well. At their best, regulations ARE exactly that - bunch of us getting together and saying "well THAT sure sucked; let's not make THAT mistake again; let's do better choices in the future". It's us saying that we are capable of learning and we don't have to make every.stupid.mistake.over.and.over.again individually. We will probably also agree very quickly on what regulations are at their very worst, or even at their median / mediocre! :). And then it becomes an intelligent discussion on where we each draw the line and what are good ratios and compromises. But I have limited respect for drawing the line at either plus or minus infinity and pretending it's a meaningful statement or a good principle to live by :-/ [if your post was sarcasm, apologies/nm; easy to miss those online]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

veave 3y ago

What's insane is that some want to replace the irresponsible parents of those teenagers with a nanny state.

doctorwho42 3y ago
Now that's some hyperbole, government regulations are some of the best tools we have in creating a reasonable society that is desirable to live in. For example, your nanny state comment could easily be modified to describe chemical waste dumping. "What's insane is that some want to replace the irresponsible CEO's and C-suite execs of those workers with a nanny state." Well fucking hell yes I do, I want the government to have to power to ruin companies if they negligently damaged or destroyed the environment we all share, for profit, stupidity or laziness. Government regulations are the only reason we the workers have it as good as we do today. 5 day work week, EPA restrictions, etc.
- veave 3y ago
  You opt into gambling, you don't opt into having your water polluted Teenagers shouldn't be gambling, their parents should be responsible for that, but some don't want to rear their children.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - TimPC 3y ago
    Sure but when teenagers shouldn't be actually gambling we have age restrictions in casinos and levy fines/revoke licenses if they violate those restrictions. Meanwhile, we allow this thing that pretty much everyone agrees is gambling, right down to being able to cash out winnings at a profit and we want to say "only your parents can stop you". How about putting loot boxes behind an 18+ restriction, and requiring id checks like casinos do? Is that not nanny state for actually gambling but is nanny state for thing almost identical to gambling?
    - 3y ago

chongli 3y ago

Simply put: technology is one step ahead of the law. All of these ‘tricks’ should be regulated as gambling for the same reasons gambling is regulated: they’re addictive, they disproportionately affect vulnerable groups, they extract large sums of money from these groups and enrich some large companies in the process. When viewed in that light, perhaps even existing gambling regulations don’t go far enough because there are plenty of people who suffer from gambling addiction and even ruin their lives in the process. As for the people who oppose all of this regulation on the basis of individual freedom (and perhaps don’t care about gambling addicts), here is the issue: externalities. People with severe gambling addiction can do tremendous damage to society as well as enable and enrich organized crime groups. It’s well documented that people with gambling addiction can and do commit thefts and even murders to fuel their addiction. Now you might also argue that regulation does not prevent gambling addiction but that is only evidence against the current set of regulations, not proof that all regulation is ineffective. Trying to determine the right regulations to minimize the harms of gambling addiction while balancing personal freedoms is the hard part of policy debates.

goodpoint 3y ago
> Simply put: technology is one step ahead of the law No, lawmakers are choosing to keep their eyes shut.

rufus_foreman 3y ago

>> we are unwilling to call loot boxes gambling because of half-baked analogies to opening a pack of baseball cards Here's your odds for opening a pack of baseball cards: https://www.topps.com/media/pdf/odds/2023ToppsSeries2Odds.pdf https://www.topps.com/media/pdf/odds/2023ToppsSeries2Odds.pd... Looks like the rarest insert is 2022 SILVER SLUGGER AWARD WINNERS CARDS PLATINUM at 1 in 1,036,176 packs.

Aerroon 3y ago

With the freedom to choose you are allowed to make bad choices. Try to remember this in the future if you ever think, "Why is this thing illegal? That's silly. People should be free to make their own choices!" Because this kind of reasoning is exactly how that other thing and all its derivatives got banned. Eg drugs and the war on drugs. Also, those analogies are not half-baked. They're spot on.

Spivak 3y ago
The war on drugs has very little to do with drugs so this is a bad analogy. So long as you are white and don't look poor you can do whatever drugs you want and the law won't get in your way. I have literally done a bump of K with an on duty cop at a music festival. The push for legalization isn't about people making their own choices, it's because it's not possible for the government to have this power and not abuse it and harm reduction via regulated production (taking away choices, clearly) and medical supervision. This argument doesn't apply to video game gambling. Nobody is getting their hit of digital lootboxes from their dealer and the government isn't arresting players for Fortnite possession. You can have all the thrill of random drops without it being tied to your credit card, there are still recovering WoW addicts. If people en masse suddenly started spending ruinous amounts of money on Yu-Gi-Oh that's a pretty strong case against them. Regulation follows the harm not the principles.
- Aerroon 3y ago
  >So long as you are white and don't look poor you can do whatever drugs you want and the law won't get in your way. I have literally done a bump of K with an on duty cop at a music festival. I hope you know that US drug policy has basically been pushed onto the entirety of the rest of the world. Eg the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961. This means that when you talk about drug policy it's not about US racial politics, it's about the entire world. So when you say "as long as you're white" it's meaningless. >This argument doesn't apply to video game gambling. Nobody is getting their hit of digital lootboxes from their dealer and the government isn't arresting players for Fortnite possession. You can have all the thrill of random drops without it being tied to your credit card, there are still recovering WoW addicts. And you can have all of this without the government intervening either. That's the whole point - government intervention is what screwed all of it up. It's not intentional, but it's just a side effect that seems to always pop up whenever the government throws around bans that are intended to impact regular people.