Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the microtransaction-fail dept.

Video game gambling schemes known as "loot boxes" or "loot crates" could be banned or restricted by regulators:

We learned last week that Belgium's gambling authority was investigating loot crates in Star Wars Battlefront II over concerns that they constitute gambling. Now, the decision is in, and the answer is a resounding yes, according to Dutch-language publication VTM Nieuws. The commission claims that purchasable add-on boxes, the contents of which are randomized, mix "money and addiction" and thus are a form of gambling.

Belgian Minister of Justice Koen Geens added: "Mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child." The commission will now reportedly work through the European Union's process to execute a total ban. We've reached out to Belgium's Gaming Commission for more details on its next steps and the legal implications of the ruling.

The country isn't alone in its stance on loot boxes. Just hours ago, Rep. Chris Lee (D) from Hawaii denounced EA's "predatory behavior" in a speech uploaded to YouTube (first spotted by Kotaku). In the clip, Lee also talks of the detrimental affect micro-transactions have on children, with specific reference to Battlefront II, which he describes as a a "Star Wars-themed online casino, designed to lure kids into spending money".

What Are Loot Boxes? Gaming's Big New Problem, Explained

Press 'F' to pay respects.

Related: Why Call of Duty WW2 Bosses Won't 'Shy Away' from History
Star Wars Game in U-Turn After Player Anger


Original Submission

Related Stories

Why Call of Duty WW2 Bosses Won't 'Shy Away' from History 41 comments

Bosses of the new Call of Duty game say they "touch on some really dark subject matter" in the new release.

The makers say creating a title based on a conflict that claimed about 60 million lives has been a challenge.

It's been 10 years since the Call of Duty franchise based a game during World War Two.

"In no way do you want to glorify violence, but at the same time you can't ignore it," says Sledgehammer Games co-founder Michael Condrey.

"We spent a lot of time working on the right balance."

[...] "It would be insincere not to touch on what was really happening," Michael explains.

"From the politics at the time, segregation among the allies, the role of women, to the Holocaust.

"By turning away from them we would not have brought the right level of awareness or be able to honour what was really happening.

Fine, but they better not cut the classic wise-cracking Brooklynite from the squad or Call of Duty and me are done.


Original Submission

Star Wars Game in U-Turn After Player Anger 40 comments

Games publisher EA has changed a rule in its Star Wars Battlefront II video game after a huge backlash.

During the game, players have to obtain credits - either by buying them or through long hours of game play - to unlock popular characters including Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.

Many players said it was unfair as the gaming required worked out at around 40 hours per character, unless they paid.

EA says the number of credits required will now be reduced by 75%.

"Unlocking a hero is a great accomplishment in the game, something we want players to have fun earning," said executive producer John Wasilczyk from the developer Dice, in a statement.

Maybe EA should spend less time withholding heros from players and more time helping players find the hero within.


Original Submission

Are Loot Boxes in Games a Violation of Gambling Laws? 92 comments

Loot boxes in video games give the player a random item, perhaps a weapon or a skin, typically in exchange for payment. Should they be viewed as a legal sweepstakes or as an illegal lottery? This video examines the legal issues and explains how loot boxes could be structured to avoid running afoul of gambling laws (which vary by state) in the U.S.. The video concludes that many current implementations of loot boxes are really illegal lotteries, and conjectures that major game companies use them anyway because the risk of being prosecuted isn't enough to dissuade them.

Previously: Belgium Moving to Ban "Loot Boxes" Throughout Europe, Hawaii Could Restrict Sale to Minors


Original Submission

U.S. Federal Trade Commission Will Investigate Video Game "Loot Boxes" 24 comments

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Pledges to Investigate Video Game Loot Boxes

Federal Trade Commission chairman Joseph Simons on Tuesday said he would investigate video game loot boxes to ensure that children are being protected and parents are educated on the matter.

Simons testified Tuesday before the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security about the commission's work. Following his testimony, a number of senators asked Simons questions on an array of topics.

Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH), who brought up the issue of loot boxes in video games earlier this year, asked the FTC to launch the investigation and Simons confirmed he would.

The request comes about nine months after Hassan sent a letter to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board asking for the group to review the ratings process as it relates to loot boxes, examine the marketing of loot boxes to children, and put together best practices for developers around the toxic form of microtransactions. The senator also asked the board to conduct a study that further delves into the reach and impact of loot boxes in games. At the time, she said if they didn't take sufficient action she would ask the FTC to get involved.

"In video games, a loot box (sometimes loot crate or prize crate, among other names) is a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, ranging from simple customization options for a player's avatar or character, to game-changing equipment such as weapons and armor. A loot box is typically a form of monetization, with players either buying the boxes directly or receiving the boxes during play and later buying "keys" with which to redeem them."

Related: Belgium Moving to Ban "Loot Boxes" Throughout Europe, Hawaii Could Restrict Sale to Minors
Are Loot Boxes in Games a Violation of Gambling Laws?
Video Game Loot Boxes are now Considered Criminal Gambling in Belgium
Mobile Gaming is Dominant in the Marketplace / Blame Loot Boxes


Original Submission

Senator to Introduce Bill to Ban Loot Boxes 14 comments

Senator Josh Hawley's press team announced yesterday "The Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act" which is soon to be introduced to the United States Senate.

a bill that would ban loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions in "games played by minors," a broad label that the senator says will include both games designed for kids under 18 and games "whose developers knowingly allow minor players to engage in microtransactions."

The game 'Candy Crush' was cited as an "egregious" example of pay-to-win with things like it's $150 "Luscious Bundle".

"When a game is designed for kids, game developers shouldn't be allowed to monetize addiction," Hawley said in a press release. "And when kids play games designed for adults, they should be walled off from compulsive microtransactions. Game developers who knowingly exploit children should face legal consequences."

Likely any such legislation would have knock-on effects throughout the gaming (and mobile gaming) markets affecting the gaming experience for non-minor players as well.

The Entertainment Software Association responded quickly stating that

"Numerous countries, including Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, determined that loot boxes do not constitute gambling. We look forward to sharing with the senator the tools and information the industry already provides that keeps the control of in-game spending in parents' hands. Parents already have the ability to limit or prohibit in-game purchases with easy to use parental controls."

With an acronym like PCAGA the bill may struggle to gain traction. Maybe we can come up with something better?

Previously: Belgium Moving to Ban "Loot Boxes" Throughout Europe, Hawaii Could Restrict Sale to Minors, Are Loot Boxes in Games a Violation of Gambling Laws?, Video Game Loot Boxes are now Considered Criminal Gambling in Belgium, Mobile Gaming is Dominant in the Marketplace / Blame Loot Boxes, U.S. Federal Trade Commission Will Investigate Video Game "Loot Boxes"


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by stretch611 on Thursday November 23 2017, @05:26PM (6 children)

    by stretch611 (6199) on Thursday November 23 2017, @05:26PM (#600722)

    I guess that the gaming industry has forgotten to pay off the right congress critters...

    I'm sure that their bribes "campaign contributions" will be increased before the banning begins.

    --
    Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:47PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:47PM (#600785)

      You saying they took a gamble? ;)

      • (Score: 2) by qzm on Friday November 24 2017, @02:23AM (4 children)

        by qzm (3260) on Friday November 24 2017, @02:23AM (#600901)

        You know that Belgium is not a place in the US, right?

        right?...

        [chirp.. chirp.. chirp..]

        • (Score: 2) by stretch611 on Friday November 24 2017, @03:34AM (3 children)

          by stretch611 (6199) on Friday November 24 2017, @03:34AM (#600913)

          Last time I checked, Hawaii was a part of the US

          --
          Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @03:54AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @03:54AM (#600919)
            Yeah but Hawaii isn't actually banning it. In politics talking about something is a huge difference from actually doing stuff about it.

            Politicians talk about doing stuff all the time to get votes. Lots of voters don't even care when presented with evidence that their candidates didn't even do the stuff, those voters continue supporting and voting for the same candidate.
            • (Score: 2) by stretch611 on Friday November 24 2017, @05:11AM

              by stretch611 (6199) on Friday November 24 2017, @05:11AM (#600935)

              Politicians also talk about things to draw attention to them. If an industry starts fearing regulation it starts increasing spending on lobbyists and political contributions.

              --
              Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday November 24 2017, @06:13AM

            by sjames (2882) on Friday November 24 2017, @06:13AM (#600958) Journal

            Are you sure it isn't Kenya?

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Thursday November 23 2017, @05:26PM (54 children)

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday November 23 2017, @05:26PM (#600723) Journal

    What about LEGO packages that contain random characters?

    What about a "grab bag" at the local grocery store?

    What about packages of trading cards?

    Hell, what about about actually asking someone for a date?

    Sometimes I think we should just line up all the legislators, tell them they are fired, and hand them their EBT (food stamp) card.

    • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @05:36PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @05:36PM (#600726)

      Hell, what about about actually asking someone for a date?

      You pay for that up front? "Here are ten bucks, what about joining me for dinner?"

      • (Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:27PM

        by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:27PM (#600836) Journal

        You pay for that up front? "Here are ten bucks, what about joining me for dinner?"

        On the upside, we've just figured out a potential hot candidate for a low strike-rate in the OP's dating history.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday November 24 2017, @06:16AM

        by sjames (2882) on Friday November 24 2017, @06:16AM (#600959) Journal

        I'm pretty sure that IS a crime in most places in the U.S..

      • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday November 24 2017, @02:51PM

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Friday November 24 2017, @02:51PM (#601042) Journal

        You pay for that up front?

        Yes, of course. Everyone pays up front - it's a social risk. You might get a date, you might not. You might suffer snarky gossip, you might not. You might be kissed, you might be sneered at.

        There's more than one kind of currency in human interaction.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @05:51PM (12 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @05:51PM (#600731)

      Trading cards feel like a similar model and I would totally not mind if they were banned as well. No more stacking up hundreds of useless items.

      Games have been highly tuned these days to provide max addiction, and having players do actual gambling is not a good thing.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:18PM (11 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:18PM (#600745) Journal

        Trading cards feel like a similar model and I would totally not mind if they were banned as well. No more stacking up hundreds of useless items.

        Nobody forced you to do that.

        Games have been highly tuned these days to provide max addiction, and having players do actual gambling is not a good thing.

        Then don't do that. At some point we have to accept that some people will make poor decisions and that it is better to let them make those poor decisions rather than ban activities that people like to do - without actually doing anything about the behavioral problems that are the pretext for the ban.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:00PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:00PM (#600768)

          At some point we have to accept that some people will make poor decisions and that it is better to let them make those poor decisions rather than ban activities that people like to do

          Like letting them post to SN?

          Basically you're wrong and you're too egotistical to realize it.

          You gotta be consistent, mate... Either you say: "government should not steer society into any type of direction at all" and then also be hands-off on the economy and the defense and everything else. Basically no police, no military, no governmental subsidies, no taxes, basically no government.
          Or you could say "look folks, some of us are dumb-asses, let's try to protect ourselves from ourselves because we're pretty darn dumb if left to our own devices" and accept that some rules are going to be made that you don't like either.
          If you want to live in a world that only has rules which you agree with, I recommend you find an uninhabited island and start your own dictatorship - preferably somewhere as far away from everything else (so that they don't impose any international regulations, you wouldn't like, upon you either).

          The mentality of "let them make mistakes" works well with kids and when people learn but at some point, people stop learning and 'letting them make mistakes' is the exact same as "fuck you, I got mine"; and people who are advocating for that type of society makes them a set of very unpleasant individuals.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:25PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:25PM (#600777)

            So you either accept total anarchy or you agree with my authoritarian policies! Wow! That's not a false dichotomy at all. You can't be in favor of some things while being against others; that's impossible.

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:12PM (3 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:12PM (#600791) Journal

            Basically you're wrong and you're too egotistical to realize it.

            We call that projection.

            You gotta be consistent, mate... Either you say: "government should not steer society into any type of direction at all" and then also be hands-off on the economy and the defense and everything else. Basically no police, no military, no governmental subsidies, no taxes, basically no government.

            Let's not be dick-in-the-wall-socket stupid here. Government can manage its basic services without steering society a bit. We don't need to throw you in jail for bullshit in order to pave roads.

            Or you could say "look folks, some of us are dumb-asses, let's try to protect ourselves from ourselves because we're pretty darn dumb if left to our own devices" and accept that some rules are going to be made that you don't like either.

            I think I've made it painfully clear that I'm not going with that argument.

            If you want to live in a world that only has rules which you agree with, I recommend you find an uninhabited island and start your own dictatorship - preferably somewhere as far away from everything else (so that they don't impose any international regulations, you wouldn't like, upon you either).

            Or I can struggle to change the rules in the world I actually live in. Stop being a dumbfuck and grow up.

            The mentality of "let them make mistakes" works well with kids and when people learn but at some point, people stop learning and 'letting them make mistakes' is the exact same as "fuck you, I got mine"; and people who are advocating for that type of society makes them a set of very unpleasant individuals./quote> So what? "Sucks to be you" is optimal here for everyone. The idiots who can't learn get to stew in their shit and everyone gets to ignore them.

            And you're projecting again with your whining about "very unpleasant individuals". Stop being part of the problem and maybe things will improve for you.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:39PM (2 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:39PM (#600840)

              Government can manage its basic services without steering society a bit. We don't need to throw you in jail for bullshit in order to pave roads.

              Maybe, but I doubt you can have a police force without also throwing some people in jail for bullshit. Nature of the beast, needs transparency and monitoring, still screws up but might not screw up as much if we all know when it's happening.

              Also, one person's "steering" is another person's "basic decency." Is rape OK? What is rape, anyway? How about masturbation in a public theater? There's a reason gambling is thrown in with other "vice" crimes - it's basically impossible to draw lines on when it gets out of hand, but pretty much everyone does agree that it can get out of hand.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:34PM (1 child)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:34PM (#600855) Journal
                I guess I'm not quite getting your point. Just because our institutions are imperfect doesn't mean that we have to try to make them more imperfect (and powerful) by creating a bunch of bogus laws for them to enforce.
                • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 24 2017, @04:41AM

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday November 24 2017, @04:41AM (#600924)

                  Agreed, we already have plenty of bogus laws - so many that most of them are enforced on whim rather than any kind of consistently.

                  But, this is our system - and when something is getting "out of hand" according to the contemporary ethic, then "there ought to be a law" - it's how elected officials get elected, empowering their electorate by passing laws that please enough voters to hopefully get them re-elected. Then, when it all blows over, enforcement is dropped and there's another handy law on the book to whip out whenever something is pissing somebody off.

                  One thing I've heard from the office of the great orange that I actually like is the "regulation reduction" proclamation that - in sound bite terms - requires two regulations abolished for each new regulation passed. If that could take hold long enough to result in simplification of the tax codes and other laws, reducing dependency on accountants and lawyers, I would call it progress.

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1, Troll) by sjames on Friday November 24 2017, @06:19AM (4 children)

          by sjames (2882) on Friday November 24 2017, @06:19AM (#600961) Journal

          So do you serve up Hershy bars and jelly beans to your kids for dinner? Because we're actually talking about kids here.

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday November 24 2017, @02:54PM (3 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 24 2017, @02:54PM (#601044) Journal
            Won't someone think of the children [wikipedia.org]? The ban affects everyone in Belgium (and perhaps eventually all of the EU), not just children.
            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday November 24 2017, @07:27PM (2 children)

              by sjames (2882) on Friday November 24 2017, @07:27PM (#601118) Journal

              The proposal in Hawaii is no sales to minors.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:23AM (1 child)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:23AM (#601199) Journal

                The proposal in Hawaii

                In case it's not clear, I don't read minds. But thank you for the clarification.

                Even in that case, you're seeing a decrease in freedom from the efforts to enforce the resulting law (such as the minors in question not being able to buy the game and gratuitous ID checks for young adults above the age minimum) combined with insignificant protection for the minor - they now have to get someone else to buy the game for them and perhaps lying about their age in the game itself. It doesn't stop a kid with a credit card from getting loot boxes. It's not as severe a harm as the Belgium case, but it's still a cost in freedom for little gain.

                And really what is supposed to be the problem here? Mommy and daddy can take the credit card away. And if this gets big enough to be an actual financial problem, then it's a learning moment for everyone involved. Not seeing the need for government to nanny this.

                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday November 26 2017, @03:48AM

                  by sjames (2882) on Sunday November 26 2017, @03:48AM (#601586) Journal

                  There is already a class of games that are rated for over 18. This would be just one more criterion that could put a game in that category.

                  I'm not claiming it's some sort of fool proof iron wall, but many parents actually do look at the ratings to decide what games their children can play. The kids that typically know someone over 18 that will buy it for them tend to be at least in their later teens themselves.so it at least slants the curve to older teens.

                  As for the problem, kids are a bit young to be subjected to stimulus carefully crafted to hijack their reward centers to get them to spend spend spend. There's plenty of time for that once they're more neurologically mature.

    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:10PM (18 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:10PM (#600741) Journal

      Sometimes I think we should just line up all the legislators, tell them they are fired,

      The Americans have the power to do that every two years. Looking at the numbers, I guess everybody's doing okay... I believe legislators can be voted out in Europe also, just might take a little longer, depending on the procedure.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:28PM (17 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:28PM (#600756)

        USians have no single election date on which all legislators are able to be voted out. At the federal level, the biennial elections are for but a fraction of the congressional offices.

        Also, what did you mean by "everybody's doing okay"?

        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:43PM (16 children)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:43PM (#600760) Journal

          The entire house can be swept clean every two years, and it's a nice big fraction of the legislature. Just gotta do it over two six year seasons for the senate. Maybe you should brush up a bit on the American system.

          Also, what did you mean by "everybody's doing okay"?

          That is what the 95% reelection rate would indicate. And please, save your breath on the excuses. Already heard them all many times over.

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
          • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:58PM (12 children)

            by Pino P (4721) on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:58PM (#600766) Journal

            You are correct that all members of the House of Representatives are up for replacement on Tuesday, November 2-8, of every even-numbered Gregorian year. But even apart from the Senate, I feel the need to remind of these:

            • Legislatures of the several states, counties, and cities, whose members are not necessarily elected on the federal Election Day. Gambling is very much a state concern.
            • Members who run unopposed in a particular district, who are de facto elected several months earlier on primary election day. Their districts, where a supermajority of voters are of one party, are often called "safe seats".
            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:14PM (11 children)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:14PM (#600792) Journal

              Yeah, I'm only trying to point out where the power is. Not getting through to most people though.

              --
              La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:27PM (5 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:27PM (#600799)

                Since you recognize that you're not getting through to most people, you may want to change your approach. Otherwise, you're just doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results, and you know what is said about that...

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:41PM (4 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:41PM (#600807)

                  What approach should be used?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:40PM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:40PM (#600841)

                    You could try any approach but the one you've been using over and over again while expecting different results.

                    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:40PM (2 children)

                      by Pino P (4721) on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:40PM (#600856) Journal

                      What other approaches exist?

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:36PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:36PM (#600873)

                        Aside from the status quo approaches (voting, running for office, helping with campaigns), there are others: educational [thefreedomline.com]; violence (both moral as self-defense and amoral as terrorism against a mostly-victim populace); dependency overload-and-collapse [wikipedia.org] (aka Cloward-Piven); disassociation; and defunding (primarily by working at limited levels or wages so that you provide no net tax revenue).

                        All are social tools and have their own good use cases (except for amoral populace terrorism).

                        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday November 24 2017, @07:11AM

                          by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday November 24 2017, @07:11AM (#600980) Journal

                          Oh jeeze! Shoulda known... My bad

                          --
                          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
              • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:01PM (4 children)

                by mhajicek (51) on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:01PM (#600822)

                Sure, the power to kick out one doofus to be replaced by another doofus who will do the exact same thing.

                --
                The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:17PM (3 children)

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:17PM (#600832) Journal

                  So, we're supposed to stick with the the old doofus instead? That makes no sense. Why not take the chance? See, that's just proof that the prison door is wide open, yet you choose to stay in the cell. At least you got your 'three hots and a cot', right? Use the nomination process to weed them out. See who finances the campaign and you know who he is going to serve. It's up to us to remind them this is a community service, not a career opportunity. If we don't, we have nobody else to blame. This applies in Europe also. They have representative governments too.

                  --
                  La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:29PM (2 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:29PM (#600838)

                    Usually both candidates have a track record of being evil, and people just keep foolishly voting for the 'lesser evil'. The solution is either a third party, or more likely, having a good candidate win a primary over one of the evil candidates and then actually voting for them.

                    They have representative governments too.

                    Our system is so stacked against third parties that it's hard to call it representative at all. Any two party system is inherently undemocratic. We have few viable options at this point, and I listed one of them. Primary enough evil candidates and we might be able to fix the situation with third parties.

                    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:42PM (1 child)

                      by Pino P (4721) on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:42PM (#600858) Journal

                      Primary enough evil candidates and we might be able to fix the situation with third parties.

                      What should Bernie Sanders fans have done to primary Hillary Clinton? What should JEB and John Kasich fans have done to primary Donald Trump?

                      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @11:40AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @11:40AM (#601018)

                        place facebook ads?

          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday November 24 2017, @06:25AM (2 children)

            by sjames (2882) on Friday November 24 2017, @06:25AM (#600964) Journal

            Not really. When the choice is between bungee or death, bungee wins every time but it's hard to say the people choosing are happy about it.

            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday November 24 2017, @06:38AM (1 child)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday November 24 2017, @06:38AM (#600970) Journal

              When the choice is between bungee or death...

              Well, the choice isn't between bungee or death, that's just what most people instinctively and irrationally choose. Personally, I feel no obligation to play along [twimg.com].

              --
              La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @07:04AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @07:04AM (#600978)

                Big words. So what are you doing to "walk away" from politics? I know you're super-keen on making sure people pay taxes to the point of cheering on the IRS enforcers, so do you pay taxes? You can't logically claim to "walk away" from a system while still spending at least half of your life supporting it financially.

    • (Score: 2) by shortscreen on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:28PM (9 children)

      by shortscreen (2252) on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:28PM (#600837) Journal

      don't forget to ban stock trading and insurance

      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday November 24 2017, @08:47AM (6 children)

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 24 2017, @08:47AM (#600996) Journal

        "Mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child."

        I don't know about in the US, but here in Europe not many children get involved with stock trading and insurance. However, gambling at any age is controlled by many countries with varying degrees of effectiveness. Including a form of gambling in computer games means that it should fall under the current legislation if it is appropriate, or should be subject to a new law if it is not. Hence Belgium's proposal.

        • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday November 24 2017, @02:55PM (5 children)

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Friday November 24 2017, @02:55PM (#601045) Journal

          However, gambling at any age is controlled by many countries with varying degrees of effectiveness.

          That doesn't make it right. Lots of countries have bad laws. The vast majority of laws that interfere with personal or consensual choice are profoundly wrongheaded.

          • (Score: 2, Disagree) by janrinok on Friday November 24 2017, @06:31PM (4 children)

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 24 2017, @06:31PM (#601097) Journal

            Are you really suggesting that encouraging children to gamble is a good idea? I'll have to disagree with you if that is what you believe.

            • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:27AM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:27AM (#601200) Journal

              Are you really suggesting that encouraging children to gamble is a good idea? I'll have to disagree with you if that is what you believe.

              I disagree. When is the best time to learn that the house always wins? Younger is better when it comes to that.

              • (Score: 2, Disagree) by janrinok on Saturday November 25 2017, @05:46AM (1 child)

                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 25 2017, @05:46AM (#601267) Journal

                Using your logic, we should also ensure that we inject our children with cocaine, just so that they learn that drug addiction is a thing to be avoided. Oh yes, and also put their hand into boiling water so that they can learn the scalding flesh is very painful.and leaves permanently scarred tissue. I genuinely hope that you are not responsible for raising any children.

                • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:05AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:05AM (#601287) Journal

                  Using your logic, we should also ensure that we inject our children with cocaine, just so that they learn that drug addiction is a thing to be avoided.

                  Or shoot themselves in the head to learn that shooting people in the head is bad? Or nuke a city to show that nuking cities is bad? Sure, that doesn't sound so hot.

                  I think here the harm isn't significant for video games. It's a cheap way to learn and certainly far more effective than hoping they stumble across the lesson without too much pain at some later date.

            • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:17PM

              by fyngyrz (6567) on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:17PM (#601501) Journal

              Are you really suggesting that encouraging children to gamble is a good idea? I'll have to disagree with you if that is what you believe.

              No. I'm saying (not suggesting) that laws that constrain informed, personal or consensual choice are an incredibly bad idea.

              You have kids? That makes you a parent. That means you have a job to do. One that is centered about the meaning of "informed." That job is not see that the government puts your kids into a box where breaching the walls thereof drops them into the arrested-and-convicted-can't-get-a-decent-job level of citizenship. That job is teaching your children how the world works, said task (obviously) including a thorough inculcation of the nature of security, risk and reward. If you don't do that job, it's not that gambling sucks, it's that you suck.

              Do your job. Don't try to make (or more precisely, allow) the government do it for you – because they suck at that. In (allegedly) trying to do good, they do huge, huge harm. most gambling laws are classic poster children for those very failings. The vast majority of them should be flushed down the figurative toilet, because they are the legislative equivalent of purest shit.

              Outside of that, any game of chance and most life decisions both involve gambling. It is the stakes that differ.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @04:15PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @04:15PM (#601067)

        Good call! I assume you're being sarcastic, but both of those have major issues. Stocks are useful, but should be updated.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:33AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:33AM (#601201) Journal

          but should be updated

          Updated for what? To the contrary, I find that the current market is quite ideal. For example, the knowledge that a young company has several tiers of stock [nytimes.com] is a great warning sign.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:43PM (1 child)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:43PM (#600842)

      What about the stock market?

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @10:37AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @10:37AM (#601012)

        SEC

    • (Score: 2) by mth on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:59PM

      by mth (2848) on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:59PM (#600844) Homepage

      If there is a significant difference in the value of the contents between bags, then yes, grab bags would be gambling.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:24PM (3 children)

      by theluggage (1797) on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:24PM (#600853)

      What about LEGO packages that contain random characters?

      What about a "grab bag" at the local grocery store?

      What about packages of trading cards?

      If those are sold on the basis that they might contain items worth a lot more than the price of the package, then (duh!) yes, that would absolutely be "gambling" and maybe, just maybe its not a good idea to sell them to under-16s, and possibly there should be some sort of legal requirement to ensure that the game is not rigged... or maybe businesses should just stick to producing honest products and selling them transparently, as described, at market prices instead of fucking around with devious ways to screw over vulnerable consumers.

      I guess trading cards would be OK if the packs contained a truly random collection - but no self-respecting money-grabbing arsehole is going to adopt that business model when they could ensure that the best cards were as rare as chicken lips and the chances of getting one honestly were nil. So, yeah, please do ban trading cards - they're a scam that mostly exploits kids and nothing of value will be lost.

      ...but they pale into insignificance alongside the cesspit that is "in-game purchases", which not only exploit kids but have also wrecked the market for decent games.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:34AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:34AM (#601202) Journal

        and possibly there should be some sort of legal requirement to ensure that the game is not rigged

        Such as truth in advertising laws? These already exist.

        • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:37PM (1 child)

          by theluggage (1797) on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:37PM (#601370)

          Such as truth in advertising laws? These already exist.

          Yeah, those work well at ensuring that the cake in the box looks like the picture on the outside... not! and can always be avoided by trying a new variations of weasel words on the package (but it says "serving suggestion" so its not claiming to be a picture of the contents, so that's OK then). The US interpretation of truth seems to be "a lawyer has read it and agrees that it is technically correct". The UK ASA rules are somewhat more savvy about cracking down on advertising that is "misleading" rather than provably false - but their powers are limited to banning the advert not the product.

          When the stakes are a bit higher than finding your cookie isn't quite as big as the box, something with a bit more teeth might be required.

          ...and none of those do much to protect minors from being exploited.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:33PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:33PM (#601386) Journal

            and can always be avoided by trying a new variations of weasel words on the package (but it says "serving suggestion" so its not claiming to be a picture of the contents, so that's OK then). The US interpretation of truth seems to be "a lawyer has read it and agrees that it is technically correct".

            So what? It's good enough. Weasel language is a good warning sign for those who care.

            When the stakes are a bit higher than finding your cookie isn't quite as big as the box, something with a bit more teeth might be required.

            So are the eventual payouts for lawsuits. Criminal fraud is another likely outcome, if the loot boxes are rigged.

            Seriously, what is supposed to be the danger here? We have laws already. All the story has is some vague talk of kids with mental health issues. Nothing concrete, aside possibly from some p-hacking studies somewhere to back that up.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @08:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @08:48AM (#600997)

      In practice, there is a world of difference between online game loot boxes and collectible card games.

      Magic the Gathering is very open about its odds. Each booster pack contains exactly one rare card, three uncommons, ten commons, and one land, with a 1/8 chance of the rare being replaced by a mythic rare and a 1/4 chance of one of the commons being replaced by a foil card. All the cards of the same rarity are equally likely. It's still gambling, but you can make a rational decision about what to buy based on statistics.

      Online game loot boxes, on the other hand, are not really randomized at all. You get good loot at exactly the rate that the underlying mathematical model, which is tuned to your personal spending habits, determines will keep you hooked. The odds aren't just hidden, they're constantly adapting to extract the maximum amount of money from you. If legally classified as gambling, this would be illegal under just about any country's gambling regulations.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Ingar on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:04PM (6 children)

    by Ingar (801) on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:04PM (#600736) Homepage

    Disclaimer: I live in Belgium

    This has been in the local news for the past few days. It began with an investigation of the national gambling commision
    and the case now went up to the DOJ.

    Gambling is effectively illegal here. Some forms are allowed, but they are heavily regulated.
    So we do have a national lottery and even a few casino's. Anything else is basicly a no-no.
    It's important to note that both offering and participating in gambling is unlawful, and the fines are
    quite hefty. Loot Box buyers might suddenly find themselves on the wrong end of The Law.

    From with I heard, the Netherlands are looking into the issue as well.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by TheRaven on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:19PM (1 child)

      by TheRaven (270) on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:19PM (#600747) Journal
      Gambling regulations are always a source of amusement. A few years ago, some MIT folk were caught cheating at roulette by having a button that they pressed when the ball came past which would predict with high accuracy where the ball would land. Normally that would be the end of the story, but it turns out that gambling regulations for casinos require that the games be random, and the fact that this method of cheating worked proved that the game was deterministic and so was a game of skill rather than chance (betting on games of skill, where the skill of the participant is the object of the bet, was illegal). There was some intense lobbying from casinos to avoid legal trouble as a result.
      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @11:44AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @11:44AM (#601019)

        wait isn't the gambling the source of the amusement? the regulations follow, like a whiny, nagging significant other wanting you to leave before you're done.

        (and i read about that, the MIT guys made big bucks with their analysis and techniques to win. i envy smart people with time on their hands to spend trying to defeat a system--be it hackers or gamblers, since the goal is often the same... sometimes the journey is what is important with the payoff just being a benefit)

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:54PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:54PM (#600764)

      Err Belgium had betting shops like tipco and ladbrokes last time I checked. Have they been shut down?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @01:27AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @01:27AM (#600892)

        Signs point to "no." http://sports.ladbrokes.be/en [ladbrokes.be] https://twitter.com/LadbrokesBE [twitter.com]

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by qzm on Friday November 24 2017, @02:27AM

        by qzm (3260) on Friday November 24 2017, @02:27AM (#600902)

        You do know that betting and gambling are two quite different things right?

        One is selection of a winner based on [whatever factors you consider important], however it is most certainly not a random outcome.
        The other is placing money down on an essentially random outcome, with a much higher possible return.

        Of course there is plenty of gray in between, and both tend to be regulated, however they are most certainly different things.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:22PM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:22PM (#600776) Homepage Journal

      We have a national lottery too, a Chuck Schumer beauty, it's called the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program." Sounds nice, it is not nice, it is not good. It hasn't been good and we have been against it. It's a big gamble, a gamble with our safety. The terrorist who did that horrible attack on New York came into our country through it. I want merit based. We're going to quickly as possible get rid of chain migration and move to a merit-based system. Keep the gambling in the casinos! #MAGA 🇺🇸

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:30PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:30PM (#600757)

    They're just not happy unless they can control every single human interaction. Too bad they have no new continents to run to and conquer. Let them be the first to Mars. The incentives run deeper than in the states. They can turn it into the bureaucrats paradise. Terra-form it with office buildings sprouting up like mushrooms. Problem is that the Americans will still have send troops to keep them from starting another world(s) war.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:03PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:03PM (#600770)

      Oh, are we doing Dumb Thursday? Can I join? How about this one for my entry: the US is the pinnacle of civilization.

      • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:29PM (1 child)

        by Gaaark (41) on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:29PM (#600778) Journal

        Oooh oooh, my turn:

        Trump Trump, he da best!

        --
        --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:08PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:08PM (#600848)

          Damn right! The Europeans should show some gratitude for saving them from Nazi and communist hell. "I should have let them rot! I did it! I saved them! ME!"

          But I do guarantee this, if the Americans pulled the troops out of Europe, they would indeed be back at war, just like the former Soviet clients are now. This last 72 years is only a pause, the longest one on record, in their millennial battle. Just more proof that an irresistible force is the only thing keeping the peace. Obama was right when he said it: *We are the indispensable nation.* This is true. Without us the powder keg will definitely blow. As we unravel, the whole world follows. Even the Chinese will get singed.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:35PM (#600779)

    I don't see how Hawaii doing that would not violate the first amendment. The government itself can't restrict what games minors can play, and they certainly can't restrict what kinds of content they could buy within a game. No such exceptions exist in the first amendment. If you think that safety (from kids gambling in a game in this case) takes precedence over free speech then you are a miserable failure of a human being. But I guess money changes hands, so it's fine to restrict whatever you please?

    As for Belgium, I expect nothing from Europe to begin with.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:45PM (8 children)

    by vux984 (5045) on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:45PM (#600809)

    "loot boxes" are a scourge on gaming right now. I shouldn't have every game I play afflicted with stupid lootboxes that I would have to make 'microtransaction' purchases for keys to 'unlock'. Its a distracting irritation in any game its in; since I refuse to participate. I never buy them, and I never will, so why can't i just turn them the fuck off? Don't award them to me, I don't care. They've been added to games I play -- its bad enough if they were always there and you knew what you signed up for. But adding them is just disgusting.

    You are playing a game... and every now and than it says, "hey you got some cool loot... pay $1 to see what it is! ooogh... this time it might be rare loot! you'll need an extra expensive key to get at this!"
    Its fucking horse armor all over again, except instead of getting horse armor, you just get a worthless stupid purple hat that you've already got 6 of, but maybe one day if you keep buying you'll actually get the horse armor. So its worse than horse armor... it basically playing slots for horse armor.

    Random loot is fine. Random loot is fun. Random loot attached to micro--transactions is just garbage. If they can nail it as gambling and ban it, then I wish them luck.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:55PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:55PM (#600814)

      You don't like it so you're happy with it being banned by any means necessary? How very principled of you.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by vux984 on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:14PM (1 child)

        by vux984 (5045) on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:14PM (#600829)

        "You don't like it so you're happy with it being banned by any means necessary? How very principled of you."

        I don't like it. And it *IS* gambling, so if that's sufficient to get it banned then, yes, that's great.

        I'm for much strong consumer protection laws in general; where people have the right to control and modify the things they buy. Where not everything can be turned into a "subscription" contract, or a "license agreement" and then open you up to having to submit to pretty much whatever terms of use they can think of, from binding arbitration if they fuck up and harm you, to suing you if you make this thing you bought and paid for work without connecting to their servers... and dealing with 'loot boxes' could be quickly dealt with under such a regime -- run a game server with them disabled, mod the game to remove them or automatically unlock them... whatever.

        That's what I'd really like to see happen.
        But it IS gambling, and I can be pragmatic and use the tools that exist. Just as the and BSD exist GPL because they are pragmatic solutions in a world where fixing the actual copyright rules is all but impossible.

        • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:25PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:25PM (#600833)

          I don't like it. And it *IS* gambling, so if that's sufficient to get it banned then, yes, that's great.

          Excellent! How principled, wanting something banned by any means necessary. It reminds me of the people who claim to want to protect us from terrorism by any means necessary, even if doing so involves violating our rights.

          I'm for much strong consumer protection laws in general

          I don't want your authoritarian "protection" anymore than I want the drug war.

          And I say this as someone who despises most game companies and gamers for being addicts who feed proprietary software developers while frequently defending or ignoring their unethical practices. A comical example of this is an instance where many people said they would boycott a certain game and then most of them were later found to be playing it. I just don't think the right way to go about it is to have the government ban things.

          Where not everything can be turned into a "subscription" contract, or a "license agreement" and then open you up to having to submit to pretty much whatever terms of use they can think of, from binding arbitration if they fuck up and harm you, to suing you if you make this thing you bought and paid for work without connecting to their servers... and dealing with 'loot boxes' could be quickly dealt with under such a regime -- run a game server with them disabled, mod the game to remove them or automatically unlock them... whatever.

          I don't think binding arbitration clauses should be enforceable at all, since people need to be able to get recourse in a neutral court. This is, however, quite different from banning gambling in video games.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @04:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @04:19PM (#601069)

        Umm, yeah? That is what being principled is all about, holding to your convictions. May not be YOUR principles but too bad.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:16PM (1 child)

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:16PM (#600830) Journal

      If they can nail it as gambling and ban it, then I wish them luck.

      You can't be serious. After all, Rep. Chris Lee of Hawaii wasn't serious:

      in a speech uploaded to YouTube

      Oh the righteous indignation! Such determination! He really means it this time!

      Posting a rant on YouTube!!! Like peeing yourself in a black wool suit. Warm fuzzy feeling, but nobody notices.

      Vote with your feet, and run away from these games, instead of ranting here where NOBODY from the game devs will ever see it.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:55PM

        by vux984 (5045) on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:55PM (#600881)

        "Vote with your feet, and run away from these games, instead of ranting here where NOBODY from the game devs will ever see it."

        'instead' ? I do both.

        I am not currently playing anything with lootboxes, and I actively avoid games that have them. But my leaving doesn't affect the developers -- they're making money from the people who are sucked in by it. They never cared about me. They're happy to fleece the suckers for dozens or hundreds or thousands of dollars. On some level, I agree with the whole 'personal responsibility' 'free market' and so forth line of arguments... but really, at the same time you can't reasonably expect 12 year old child to come out on top versus a big corporation backed by massive investment in behavioural science, and a product development cycle designed to make the product as addictive as possible.

    • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday November 24 2017, @12:09AM (1 child)

      by Mykl (1112) on Friday November 24 2017, @12:09AM (#600883)

      I absolutely hate them too - they are really destroying the ability of developers to come up with proper reward schemes within games that don't involve continuing to pay for stuff forever.

      In a perfect world, gamers would just avoid these games and the devs would get the message - DO NOT WANT. Unfortunately, there are people out there that have more money than sense. For example, I'm playing the mobile version of "Middle Earth - Shadow of War" at the moment. Not a bad game behind it, but loot-boxed to the hilt. I read messages in group chat from some players who have spent over $100 in loot boxes just to get legendary characters (like Legolas, Gandalf etc). By my estimate, you'd need to play for over a year to unlock these characters without forking over cash.

      More realistically, I think that it will be hard to ban loot boxes outright. Perhaps we can confirm that loot boxes are indeed a form of gambling, and therefore require a R18+ rating for any game that includes them? At least that gets them out of the hands of kids (and, incidentally the Apple App Store).

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Friday November 24 2017, @12:41AM

        by vux984 (5045) on Friday November 24 2017, @12:41AM (#600884)

        "Unfortunately, there are people out there that have more money than sense. "

        This is starting to reach the point where we are blaming the victim. The developers are targeting these people and crafting the games to give them the little hits of dopamine etc to get them addicted. Its backed by behavioural science. Its not merely that these people have more money than sense -- they're being actively hunted and baited... and lots of these people are kids.

        "By my estimate, you'd need to play for over a year to unlock these characters without forking over cash."

        And that's the worst... the idea that game is simultaneously engaging enough to get players hooked playing, yet designed around deliberately withholding the stuff players want to the point that players will actually pay not to have to play the game to get what they want from it. It's brilliant... it's evil.

(1)