"Lootboxes", "cases", "packs" and other chance-based systems that involve spending real money or an in-game currency that could be obtained by spending real money should be banned completely, all of those systems exploit brain vulnerabilities for profit. Also, prediction markets, sports betting, online casinos, shitcoin exchanges.
It's interesting that your list skews entirely digital, and that more physical games of chance like lotteries and blackjack are not on the list. Do you see them as fundamentally different?
He was very much pro-legalizing online gambling. He had worked for sportsbooks, had done lots of sports betting himself, stuff like that. But has concluded that legalizing online gambling has been a disaster.
> When sports gambling was legalized in America, I was hopeful it too could prove a net positive force, far superior to the previous obnoxious wave of daily fantasy sports.
> It brings me no pleasure to conclude that this was not the case. The results are in. Legalized mobile gambling on sports, let alone casino games, has proven to be a huge mistake. The societal impacts are far worse than I expected.
The article makes a compelling argument that online gambling is a lot worse than other forms of gambling.
I have a take on this too. You know how scammers cast a really wide net, hoping to get lucky and find suckers? Well, that's really only part of the story, what actually happens is they get lucky and happen to find people when they are vulnerable. That's how smart people get scammed somewhat randomly.
When online gambling is in your pocket, it is guaranteed to be available when you're vulnerable.
Well I was thinking in the context of games, so the list is some of the stuff that you can waste unlimited amounts of real money on to get a chance for a shiny digital item. I do think that physical gambling is bad too, though it's not as easily accessible, you don't carry a (physical) roulette table in your pocket.
Watch how fast they use this to further the extent of mandatory age verification online. That's what they usually do (read: the Shock Doctrine from Naomi Klein). Problem arises, create legislation (likely reducing freedom or increasing surveillance), use said legislation down the line after everybody forgets about it to further whatever their agenda is.
Great. Now do Roblox. In the game "Steal a Brainrot" the kinds of things kids can spend money on in the game that's supposedly safe for seven-year-olds is disgusting. £29.99 for a "secret lucky block" - and that's BEFORE price discrimination. Literally wiring the brains of kids as early as possible to have a tendency/preference towards "random variance rewards." I am really pleased to see any government doing something about this and protecting kids from this disgusting, predatory, and exploitative behavior.
By all means game developers deserve to make a living... However, if they're going to operate a casino, they should be treated and licensed as such.
I do understand the rationale; and I have known kids who
were addicted to gaming. So I don't disagree that this
kind of addiction-mechanism in games, is somewhat similar
to e. g. casino gambling where some people get hooked up
and may be unable to exit that addiction, leading to
massive loss. People are different - some are very easy
to addict. Others have strategies against that. My simple
strategy was to never start gambling - and never pay for
playing a game (aside from the initial purchase, but the
last game I bought was in the 1990s; back then games were
IMO better too, ignoring the graphics).
Having said that, though, when I also combine this news
with the attempt to force operating systems into sniffing
for my age at all times, I am still totally against this.
This kind of over-eager bureaucracy is not good. It reminds
me of attempts to prohibit alcohol. Yes, it is not the same,
a loot box does not cause physical symptoms really, compared
to alcohol or, say, harder drugs - but states seem too eager
to want to restrict people. Or monitor them, such as in the
case of "age verification". So now this legislation is another
basis to support mandatory age sniffing of everyone. So I am
completely against it now.
to the dozens who use the rating system as a deciding factor for getting games for their kids, i suppose this will help.
meanwhile, one of the game that would have been affected by it, Counter-Strike 2, is already rated M by ESRB [1]. it is undergoing a major case in NY as we speak, and there are many professional players, also recognized by the devs, that openly stated they played the game since their early teens. [2]
it does mean that a lot of more suitable games for younger audience, such as the sports title released every year. but a lot of them already have free titles with pay-to-win mechanics. i wonder if the enforcement would really differ any more than it currently is.
Tbh, pokemon cards were already banned over here in many primary school playgrounds 20 years ago. Not because of "gambling", but because rule disputes and outright theft started too many teen fisticuffs.
I don't think I have ever paid attention to a single age rating in my entire life. Does anyone do outside of fundamentalist parents who wouldn't let kids play most video games anyways?
Very spiritually European move.
What regulators should do is focus on easily applicable percentage-based fines. Make sure it's not just another line item.
Loot Boxes are like Pokemon cards, you buy a pack, don't know what you're going to get, and then you can trade or sell them. Banning this is just preventing kids from developing a proper risk/reward instinct later in life.
Loot boxes are an in-game feature allowing players to buy random mystery items with real or virtual currency
That's not how I use the term. I think of a loot box as a treasure chest or similar that you discover while exploring which, when opened, gives you some loot!
On the other hand if you're talking about a package with a random assortment of stuff in it that you buy without knowing what's inside, I call that a "grab bag" or "mystery bundle".
Am I too old? What games were primarily responsible for changing the vocabulary?
202 comments
He was very much pro-legalizing online gambling. He had worked for sportsbooks, had done lots of sports betting himself, stuff like that. But has concluded that legalizing online gambling has been a disaster.
> When sports gambling was legalized in America, I was hopeful it too could prove a net positive force, far superior to the previous obnoxious wave of daily fantasy sports.
> It brings me no pleasure to conclude that this was not the case. The results are in. Legalized mobile gambling on sports, let alone casino games, has proven to be a huge mistake. The societal impacts are far worse than I expected.
The article makes a compelling argument that online gambling is a lot worse than other forms of gambling.
I have a take on this too. You know how scammers cast a really wide net, hoping to get lucky and find suckers? Well, that's really only part of the story, what actually happens is they get lucky and happen to find people when they are vulnerable. That's how smart people get scammed somewhat randomly.
When online gambling is in your pocket, it is guaranteed to be available when you're vulnerable.
By all means game developers deserve to make a living... However, if they're going to operate a casino, they should be treated and licensed as such.
Having said that, though, when I also combine this news with the attempt to force operating systems into sniffing for my age at all times, I am still totally against this. This kind of over-eager bureaucracy is not good. It reminds me of attempts to prohibit alcohol. Yes, it is not the same, a loot box does not cause physical symptoms really, compared to alcohol or, say, harder drugs - but states seem too eager to want to restrict people. Or monitor them, such as in the case of "age verification". So now this legislation is another basis to support mandatory age sniffing of everyone. So I am completely against it now.
meanwhile, one of the game that would have been affected by it, Counter-Strike 2, is already rated M by ESRB [1]. it is undergoing a major case in NY as we speak, and there are many professional players, also recognized by the devs, that openly stated they played the game since their early teens. [2]
it does mean that a lot of more suitable games for younger audience, such as the sports title released every year. but a lot of them already have free titles with pay-to-win mechanics. i wonder if the enforcement would really differ any more than it currently is.
[1] https://www.esrb.org/ratings/9406/counter-strike/
[2] https://www.hltv.org/player/19230/m0NESY
I don't think I have ever paid attention to a single age rating in my entire life. Does anyone do outside of fundamentalist parents who wouldn't let kids play most video games anyways?
Very spiritually European move.
What regulators should do is focus on easily applicable percentage-based fines. Make sure it's not just another line item.
How much access to money parents want to give their kids is up to the parents.
What people do with their own money, including kids, is up to the people.
WHY are countries not enacting laws that punish companies for once? Say something like:
• "After 3-5 purchases of the same item with random contents the buyer should get the content they specifically want."
• "No item with random contents should cost more than N $\€"
• "Buyers should have N-M hours to get a refund for an item with random contents"
That way you could keep the "fun" and spirit of gambling without its destructive spiral and stuff
That's not how I use the term. I think of a loot box as a treasure chest or similar that you discover while exploring which, when opened, gives you some loot!
On the other hand if you're talking about a package with a random assortment of stuff in it that you buy without knowing what's inside, I call that a "grab bag" or "mystery bundle".
Am I too old? What games were primarily responsible for changing the vocabulary?