U.S legislator proposes bill to ban games with manipulative mechanics towards minors

[Tryhard]

yeah, I mean EA will go back to some other asinine idea like online passes or excessive DLC that they'll find a roundabout way not to classify as microtransactions to make up for it either way.

it's not actually going to fix the problem.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Tryhard

[Interdimensional Observer]

On 5/13/2019 at 4:47 PM, Etheus said:

It would be a better Heroes, though I do have to wonder how much of the game's appeal is ironically directly rooted in that unhealthy gambling uncertainty ("ooh, what am I going to get") that makes the game so consumer unfriendly in the first place. I can certainly say from my personal experience that I experience excitement before each roll, and I'm not proud of that.

Same, until you start running low on Orbs and still haven't gotten what you want. 

That is the evil exhilaration of gambling, but it can be and is done without selling your house thankfully. One case of many- leveling in any mainline FE. "Will X proc a good levelup? -HP/Str/Spd/Def/- yay! -Lck- boo! Do better next time!".

[DragonFlames]

14 hours ago, eclipse said:

I have zero faith in EA - chances are, they'll find some loophole and go back to their awful practices.

This is the truest of truths that ever truth'd.
Saddest thing is, you can replace EA with pretty much any company and it would still be true. EVERYONE abuses loopholes in laws. And honestly? They'd be pretty dumb if they didn't. Why change your ways if you don't have any disadvantage to them? I know this might sound cynical, but it's true. EA's awful practices rake in a huge profit, even now. Only when that absolutely stops will they change. So long as this crap is still profitable (and legal/not loophole proof), they'll keep doing it.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

1 hour ago, DragonFlames said:

This is the truest of truths that ever truth'd.
Saddest thing is, you can replace EA with pretty much any company and it would still be true. EVERYONE abuses loopholes in laws. And honestly? They'd be pretty dumb if they didn't. Why change your ways if you don't have any disadvantage to them? I know this might sound cynical, but it's true. EA's awful practices rake in a huge profit, even now. Only when that absolutely stops will they change. So long as this crap is still profitable (and legal/not loophole proof), they'll keep doing it.

Hmm no. Let's be fair here, EA and Activision actually do stand out in these conversations for good reason: They try to cram that shit into every single one of their games and in EA's case, they've tried to bypass the law.

There ARE Developers out there with no interest in that garbage going into their game. I don't remember there being commotion over this stuff on Marvel's Spiderman on the PS4 for example. It's not a good idea to equate the bad eggs with everyone else when the bad eggs are the real problem, otherwise you give ammo to their tendency to just brush it off and say "everyone else is doing it".

Edited May 15, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque

[DragonFlames]

2 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Hmm no. Let's be fair here, EA and Activision actually do stand out in these conversations for good reason: They try to cram that shit into every single one of their games and in EA's case, they've tried to bypass the law.

There ARE Developers out there with no interest in that garbage going into their game. I don't remember there being commotion over this stuff on Marvel's Spiderman on the PS4 for example. It's not a good idea to equate the bad eggs with everyone else when the bad eggs are the real problem, otherwise you give ammo to their tendency to just brush it off and say "everyone else is doing it".

That is true, yes. I stand corrected. Though I do believe the big companies (emphasis on "big") that actually give a crap about anything else than exploiting consumers (and workers) are an ever dwindling minority.
In that same vein, you forgot about Ubisoft, Konami, Warner Bros. RockStar, CDPR, Epic Games, and Netherrealm Studios.

Needless to say, the entire "Triple A" shtick has had its meaning twisted right around to the opposite of what marketing thinks/says it means.

On another note: I personally believe the "everyone else is doing it" excuse is about on the same level as the whole "it's always been done like this" argument, the whole "oh, but what they do is worse!" argument, otherwise known as "whataboutism", and of course "what they did back then was bad, but this is even worse, so now the bad things from back then aren't as bad anymore". All of these hold no weight to me.

Edited May 15, 2019 by DragonFlames

[XRay]

There are two issues in this thread that I see. One issue is as the title states concerning the practice of marketing and selling to minors. The other issue is the people's dislike of the industries' monetization model. On both issues, I am going to disagree with the majority on here.

On the first issue, I think the law is unfair to the videogame industry. Game companies marketing and selling loot boxes and DLCs are no different from trading card companies marketing and selling booster packs and expansions. Just because the medium is electronic makes marketing and selling products to children not okay? Why is it okay for a toy company to market their other products on their packaging to entice children to collect their entire product line but not okay for game companies to market their DLCs for easy ingame money or experience or more units to play with?

As for the second issue, I have no problem with the industry using DLCs and gachas as part of their monetization model. Companies have mouths to feed, and running a business is not fucking cheap. As a person who works in bookkeeping, I basically keep track of where the money comes and goes. Just I alone as a bookkeeper with 1 year of experience costs at least $18 per hour (I was paid $20 per hour in both my previous jobs). Once you factor in other staff like HR, sales, IT, management, and the actual software coders and graphics designers of an established gaming company, it is going to cost a company at least tens of thousands on just wages per day. And that does not factor in other stuff like utilities, rent, equipment, and all the other expensive shit that goes into running a business. A medium sized game company with say 300 employees being paid an average of $25 per hour with an 8 hour workday is going to cost the company $60,000 a day in just wages, or over a $1,000,000 per month. While I am more than happy to pay $90 for Awakening to have the game and all the DLCs in one neat little package, a lot of players on here seems to imply they are willing to spend $40 on a game but expect $90 worth of content to come with it, which is just freaking absurd. I am not busting my ass off for $9 per hour pushing numbers across a spreadsheet just so strangers can have fun pushing their virtual armies across a map.

[eclipse]

2 hours ago, XRay said:

On the first issue, I think the law is unfair to the videogame industry. Game companies marketing and selling loot boxes and DLCs are no different from trading card companies marketing and selling booster packs and expansions. Just because the medium is electronic makes marketing and selling products to children not okay? Why is it okay for a toy company to market their other products on their packaging to entice children to collect their entire product line but not okay for game companies to market their DLCs for easy ingame money or experience or more units to play with?

The difference is that I can sell my entire CCG collection to recoup some of the cost.  Also, a parent needs to be physically there to pay for it, if it's a minor with no money of their own.  DLC, not so much.

2 hours ago, XRay said:

As for the second issue, I have no problem with the industry using DLCs and gachas as part of their monetization model. Companies have mouths to feed, and running a business is not fucking cheap. As a person who works in bookkeeping, I basically keep track of where the money comes and goes. Just I alone as a bookkeeper with 1 year of experience costs at least $18 per hour (I was paid $20 per hour in both my previous jobs). Once you factor in other staff like HR, sales, IT, management, and the actual software coders and graphics designers of an established gaming company, it is going to cost a company at least tens of thousands on just wages per day. And that does not factor in other stuff like utilities, rent, equipment, and all the other expensive shit that goes into running a business. A medium sized game company with say 300 employees being paid an average of $25 per hour with an 8 hour workday is going to cost the company $60,000 a day in just wages, or over a $1,000,000 per month. While I am more than happy to pay $90 for Awakening to have the game and all the DLCs in one neat little package, a lot of players on here seems to imply they are willing to spend $40 on a game but expect $90 worth of content to come with it, which is just freaking absurd. I am not busting my ass off for $9 per hour pushing numbers across a spreadsheet just so strangers can have fun pushing their virtual armies across a map.

I'll feel sorry for the likes of Blizzard when they don't lay off employees after turning over profits.

[XRay]

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

The difference is that I can sell my entire CCG collection to recoup some of the cost.  Also, a parent needs to be physically there to pay for it, if it's a minor with no money of their own.  DLC, not so much.

Players can sell their Heroes account, although that might be against their terms but Intelligent Systems can always change it. Children also cannot purchase DLCs on their own either. A child going through their parent's wallet to steal cash to buy toys is no different from going through the exact same wallet to steal credit cards to buy DLCs.

Singling out the videogame industry just because it is the hottest new thing in entertainment does not sit right with me.

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

I'll feel sorry for the likes of Blizzard when they don't lay off employees after turning over profits.

Businesses have to maintain a certain level of profitability, and profits should be rising every year. Raising profits can be done in two ways: raising revenue and cutting costs. Cutting costs unfortunately often involves laying off employees. However it is better to lay off employees now to be in a better financial situation to prepare for a rainy day than to go bankrupt at the slightest downturn and lay off everyone.

If we just look at the financials for ATVI, while their profits (Net Income From Continuing Ops) are trending upwards, it is not rising so high so quickly that they should not lay off employees to restructure their workforce.

Edited May 17, 2019 by XRay

[Eltosian Kadath]

In a move almost certainly inspired by this bill, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is hosting a public workshop to look into consumer protection issues related to loot boxes on August 7th 2019 at the Constitution Center in Washington D.C.. The FTC invites the public to submit emails by June 7th regarding potential topics and participants at the email address lootboxworkshop@ftc.gov and asks for written online submission for more general concerns and comments at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2019-0021 by the end of October 11th 2019. More information about the event can be found https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/inside-game-unlocking-consumer-issues-surrounding-loot-boxes and I advise any US citizen that feels strongly about this issue to involve themselves in the democratic process by voicing their concerns.

[XRay]

7 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

In a move almost certainly inspired by this bill, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is hosting a public workshop to look into consumer protection issues related to loot boxes on August 7th 2019 at the Constitution Center in Washington D.C.. The FTC invites the public to submit emails by June 7th regarding potential topics and participants at the email address lootboxworkshop@ftc.gov and asks for written online submission for more general concerns and comments at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2019-0021 by the end of October 11th 2019. More information about the event can be found https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/inside-game-unlocking-consumer-issues-surrounding-loot-boxes and I advise any US citizen that feels strongly about this issue to involve themselves in the democratic process by voicing their concerns.

Ooh! Nice. I did not know they ask for feedback like this.

I think I will email and comment my thoughts too.

[eclipse]

On 5/16/2019 at 8:24 PM, XRay said:

Players can sell their Heroes account, although that might be against their terms but Intelligent Systems can always change it. Children also cannot purchase DLCs on their own either. A child going through their parent's wallet to steal cash to buy toys is no different from going through the exact same wallet to steal credit cards to buy DLCs.

YES SELLING YOUR ACCOUNT IS AGAINST THE TERMS OF SERVICE.

Why are you advocating for businesses if you don't even read such things?

On 5/16/2019 at 8:24 PM, XRay said:

Businesses have to maintain a certain level of profitability, and profits should be rising every year. Raising profits can be done in two ways: raising revenue and cutting costs. Cutting costs unfortunately often involves laying off employees. However it is better to lay off employees now to be in a better financial situation to prepare for a rainy day than to go bankrupt at the slightest downturn and lay off everyone.

If we just look at the financials for ATVI, while their profits (Net Income From Continuing Ops) are trending upwards, it is not rising so high so quickly that they should not lay off employees to restructure their workforce.

. . .what.

I mean, I'll believe you when you're the one who loses their job in the name of profits.  I'll also believe you when the top-level staff's pay reflects profits (or lack thereof).  Record-breaking profits isn't a reason to lay off employees - either you're lying to your investors, or lying to your work force.

[XRay]

5 minutes ago, eclipse said:

YES SELLING YOUR ACCOUNT IS AGAINST THE TERMS OF SERVICE.

Why are you advocating for businesses if you don't even read such things?

They can always change their terms of service to work around laws.

7 minutes ago, eclipse said:

. . .what.

I mean, I'll believe you when you're the one who loses their job in the name of profits.  I'll also believe you when the top-level staff's pay reflects profits (or lack thereof).  Record-breaking profits isn't a reason to lay off employees - either you're lying to your investors, or lying to your work force.

Of course I would not be happy if I was an employee that got laid off, but if you look at it from management and stockholders' perspective, reducing your workforce is not a bad idea to shore up your finances, especially with talk of a possible upcoming recession for the last two years.

If they have an increase of 1% in profits every year, then every year has record breaking profits, which is actually kind of bad. Even if the company can increase their profits for example by an average of 10% every year (ignoring recessions), that does not mean the company can just rest on its laurels. Inflation alone eats 2% off your increase in profits each year. You also have to pay your stockholders money too, so that is about 1% off your increase again. Now that increase is down to 7%. Say a recession hits once every ten years, 7% compounded over 9 years is ~84%, and if the company is lucky the recession will only eat the 84% piggy bank and not touch the rest of the profits, which basically means the company has increased its profits effectively by 0% every year in this 10 year period.

ATVI has really high record breaking profits for sure in 2018 with almost twice the reported profit than usual, but that means nothing if you ignore the larger trend and what they were doing financially in other years. ATVI has complete shit profits in 2017 largely due to paying a huge amount of taxes, so if you average out 2017 and 2018, while you can still claim they have record breaking profits, their increase in profits have slowed down compared to 2015 to 2016. 

Reported profits (in thousands):
2018: 1,813,000
2017: 273,000
2016: 966,000
2015: 892,000

Averaging out 2018 and 2017:
2018: 1,043,000
2017: 1,043,000
2016: 966,000
2015: 892,000

End loading 2018:
2018: 1,120,000
2017: 966,000
2016: 966,000
2015: 892,000

Increase in profits:
2018: 1,120/966=15.94%
2017: 0%
2016: 966/892=8.29%

Average increase in profits:
2018: 7.97%
2017: 7.97%
2016: 8.29%

8% increase is pretty nice, but it is not so good either where laying off workers is unjustifiable.

[Moblin Major General]

Lies, Damned lies, and statistics. No amount of numbers could possibly justify the horrible business practices which these companies use. This sort of defense was used when Roosevelt subpoenaed the robber barons. It didn't convince anyone back then, either, and the companies were split up. I would venture to say these mega corporations making these games will also have to split up or risk collapsing under their own weight, especially when these laws hit.

[Tryhard]

6 hours ago, eclipse said:

YES SELLING YOUR ACCOUNT IS AGAINST THE TERMS OF SERVICE.

Why are you advocating for businesses if you don't even read such things?

I mean, selling accounts or virtual items has been a big gray area industry for a while that is not even really cared about. It's probably not any harder than getting your parents credit or debit card information to pay for DLC, or getting an allowance and spending it all on CCG cards. Buying or selling gold and items in MMOs (for example) is a business that is technically against ToS, but nobody gives a shit about it.

(I would know, having done the above in the past)

I personally don't really see why CCGs should be excluded if we are going with the whole 'think of the children possibly gambling' point of view. They can still buy it in game stores if they have money to do so - just like if a kid is trying to buy lootboxes or microtransactions. You can also pay to have them delivered through online stores.

And are we talking about restricting these things for children, or removing them entirely? Because the way I read the bill in the OP it is to ban them in general, not restrict them for children (which is not even really possible).

Edited May 18, 2019 by Tryhard

[XRay]

1 hour ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Lies, Damned lies, and statistics. No amount of numbers could possibly justify the horrible business practices which these companies use. This sort of defense was used when Roosevelt subpoenaed the robber barons. It didn't convince anyone back then, either, and the companies were split up. I would venture to say these mega corporations making these games will also have to split up or risk collapsing under their own weight, especially when these laws hit.

Hold up. Just because the numbers do not agree with you, that means the numbers are lying? What kind of logic is that? So global warming is fake news because there are some scientists who dispute it and 99% of scientists who say global warming is real are just lying? This is not a criminal case here where you need a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

These companies are not monopolies, so splitting them up is not going to do anything except making them more vulnerable to downturns and business mistakes.

Name calling them robber barons is not going to help the peoples' case as it just reeks of entitlement, hypocrisy, and greed. Why is it okay for consumers to be so stingy and greedy, but not okay for game companies to pursue high profits? Why the hell should game developers slave away for your leisure and entertainment?

If you do not like gacha games' business model, then do not freaking play gacha games. It would be like me complaining about Netflix and other video streaming services are shit and too pricey because I am too poor to afford to watch different exclusives on different streaming services.

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

And are we talking about restricting these things for children, or removing them entirely? Because the way I read the bill in the OP it is to ban them in general, not restrict them for children (which is not even really possible).

That is what a lot of the comments are like too on the FTC website. To me, it just looks like a huge wall of complaining from entitled people. This is not medication, shelter, food, utilities, etc. where having price controls and regulations make sense. This is about the entertainment industry and luxury goods.

[eclipse]

13 hours ago, XRay said:

They can always change their terms of service to work around laws.

I seriously doubt that it will happen.

13 hours ago, XRay said:

(snip)

I will believe this when management fires itself.  Which they will never do.

If I wanted to be dishonest about it, firing the top executives is also the most efficient - you can recoup the cost of their income (which is far higher than the grunts), and it means less people lose their jobs.  Oh, and since these guys got more compensation, it means that they should theoretically have more savings, so can afford to be out of work for longer.  This logic completely ignores the benefit that the highest-paid workers provide, but that's what happens when it's only about numbers.

People are not numbers.  But I don't think you'll truly understand this until you're seen as a number.

8 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I mean, selling accounts or virtual items has been a big gray area industry for a while that is not even really cared about. It's probably not any harder than getting your parents credit or debit card information to pay for DLC, or getting an allowance and spending it all on CCG cards. Buying or selling gold and items in MMOs (for example) is a business that is technically against ToS, but nobody gives a shit about it.

It's not a gray area when the ToS explicitly says "don't do this".  It becomes an issue of enforcement.

Kids who want to buy cards and don't have their own money need to get their parent to go to the store with them.  With stuff like in-game purchases, the kid may already have the info (in the form of a poorly-configured device).  Also, stuff like mobile apps are played by kids that are younger than the CCG crowd. . .because reading is mandatory for the latter.

[XRay]

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

I seriously doubt that it will happen.

If ATVI went through the hassle of paying their taxes early to take advantage of tax breaks, I am pretty sure they will go through hassle of redoing their terms if it means keeping their profits.

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

I will believe this when management fires itself.  Which they will never do.

If I wanted to be dishonest about it, firing the top executives is also the most efficient - you can recoup the cost of their income (which is far higher than the grunts), and it means less people lose their jobs.  Oh, and since these guys got more compensation, it means that they should theoretically have more savings, so can afford to be out of work for longer.  This logic completely ignores the benefit that the highest-paid workers provide, but that's what happens when it's only about numbers.

People are not numbers.  But I don't think you'll truly understand this until you're seen as a number.

Management does not often fire itself, but the board and stockholders will not hesitate to terminate management if management performs poorly. I have not paid attention to the gaming industry's management so I cannot really comment on them, but other industries' stockholders have no problem firing management or at least voice their complaints. General Electric got like 3 different CEOs last year because stockholders were not happy with how the first 2 CEOs managed the company. A significant fraction of Tesla's stockholders also tried to get rid Musk recently after all the stunts he pulled on Twitter, but they did not have enough control over the company to kick him out.

I agree that people are not numbers, but I disagree that employers are obligated to keep employees hired if they do not need those employees. Companies are not charities, and even the non-profit I worked for last year had to let me go because they decided to cut the program I was working on and transfer the responsibilities of my program to another one. I can call them greedy for spending a shit ton of money on a whole new office building instead of putting that money towards programs they manage and keep me employed, but I do not do that since that would be no different if a hobo called me greedy because I bought a nice house for myself instead of spending that money hiring the hobo to give him a job or something.

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

Kids who want to buy cards and don't have their own money need to get their parent to go to the store with them.  With stuff like in-game purchases, the kid may already have the info (in the form of a poorly-configured device).  Also, stuff like mobile apps are played by kids that are younger than the CCG crowd. . .because reading is mandatory for the latter.

I do not think it is right to punish companies for parents' ignorance. This is 2019. Adults need to grow up and learn how to manage their private financial information.

Edited May 18, 2019 by XRay

[eclipse]

8 hours ago, XRay said:

If ATVI went through the hassle of paying their taxes early to take advantage of tax breaks, I am pretty sure they will go through hassle of redoing their terms if it means keeping their profits.

What, to allow account selling?

8 hours ago, XRay said:

Management does not often fire itself, but the board and stockholders will not hesitate to terminate management if management performs poorly. I have not paid attention to the gaming industry's management so I cannot really comment on them, but other industries' stockholders have no problem firing management or at least voice their complaints. General Electric got like 3 different CEOs last year because stockholders were not happy with how the first 2 CEOs managed the company. A significant fraction of Tesla's stockholders also tried to get rid Musk recently after all the stunts he pulled on Twitter, but they did not have enough control over the company to kick him out.

I agree that people are not numbers, but I disagree that employers are obligated to keep employees hired if they do not need those employees. Companies are not charities, and even the non-profit I worked for last year had to let me go because they decided to cut the program I was working on and transfer the responsibilities of my program to another one. I can call them greedy for spending a shit ton of money on a whole new office building instead of putting that money towards programs they manage and keep me employed, but I do not do that since that would be no different if a hobo called me greedy because I bought a nice house for myself instead of spending that money hiring the hobo to give him a job or something.

. . .if you didn't learn your lesson from your last job, then I'm wasting my breath arguing with you.

8 hours ago, XRay said:

I do not think it is right to punish companies for parents' ignorance. This is 2019. Adults need to grow up and learn how to manage their private financial information.

While gacha isn't the same as child labor, the latter goes to show what happens when money is the bottom line.  This is why governments are needed to remind companies what they shouldn't be doing.

This bill is aimed at apps targeting children.  Realistically speaking, not every parent is smart enough to hook up the likes of a prepaid card to their phone, instead of their actual one.  Or the kid can shoulder surf and get a passcode that way.  Or some parents don't realize that digital purchases are still purchases.  Or said parent is busy making sure kid #3 doesn't end up at the bottom of the swimming pool, and left their unlocked phone for kid #1 to buy stuff in an app as they please.  Or a bunch of other reason that aren't coming to mind right now.

It's easy to blame parents, when you aren't one.  I may not be one, but I deal with a lot of them.  Watching multiple kids isn't easy, and giving an electronic device to keep one out of trouble isn't unrealistic.  Hence why laws regarding apps aimed at children are necessary. . .but I'd recommend NOT having multiple kids until you're ready.

[Tryhard]

16 hours ago, eclipse said:

It's not a gray area when the ToS explicitly says "don't do this".  It becomes an issue of enforcement.

Kids who want to buy cards and don't have their own money need to get their parent to go to the store with them.  With stuff like in-game purchases, the kid may already have the info (in the form of a poorly-configured device).  Also, stuff like mobile apps are played by kids that are younger than the CCG crowd. . .because reading is mandatory for the latter.

Kids could also purchase literally almost anything (including virtual codes for a lot of games) online if someone leaves their PC with Amazon logged in. It's not any different.

7 hours ago, eclipse said:

This bill is aimed at apps targeting children.  Realistically speaking, not every parent is smart enough to hook up the likes of a prepaid card to their phone, instead of their actual one.  Or the kid can shoulder surf and get a passcode that way.  Or some parents don't realize that digital purchases are still purchases.  Or said parent is busy making sure kid #3 doesn't end up at the bottom of the swimming pool, and left their unlocked phone for kid #1 to buy stuff in an app as they please.  Or a bunch of other reason that aren't coming to mind right now.

It's easy to blame parents, when you aren't one.  I may not be one, but I deal with a lot of them.  Watching multiple kids isn't easy, and giving an electronic device to keep one out of trouble isn't unrealistic.  Hence why laws regarding apps aimed at children are necessary. . .but I'd recommend NOT having multiple kids until you're ready.

My bigger problem is that this is essentially the new version of politicians attempting to ban violent video games or rap music because children can sometimes have access to them instead of it being the parents responsibility. This is a Republican senator proposing this, who probably has never played a game in his life.The example he gave for an exploitative game was Candy Crush.

And we all know how those attempts fell flat on their face, but since it's something that the majority of people dislike, now I'm supposed to change a principle because 'lootbox bad'. I agree, lootbox bad, but that doesn't mean we should make up some bullshit excuse about protecting children if you want to tackle the issue. You need to actually have an argument for wanting to force companies to take them out through regulation, and the one that is currently being proposed can easily be applied to things people actually like, CCGs and Gachas (pause here for laughter).

It won't even fix the problem by itself, because undoubtedly EA and their insidious marketing teams will find a way to monetise some other scheme that involves going back to online passes for pre-owned games, going even harder on the season pass phenomenon, or selling excessive DLC that functions in the same way but bypasses any classification of micro-transactions or lootboxes.

It's made even harder by the fact that games allow for payment online instead of being there in person, so there is no way to verify if the purchaser is a child, so therefore we need to ban the entire industry from things like micro-transactions or in-game currencies for everyone. Does that sound reasonable?

Until a better argument is provided, or until people just admit that they do have consistency and it should also apply to CCGs and Gacha games (which I have no problem with if you do believe that), then this is basically on the level with Jack Thompson wanting to ban violent video games because children may play them, but gets a pass because 'lootbox bad'. Kids always found a way to watch, listen to or play things they shouldn't be, whether through their parents ignorance or whatever else.

This is not to say that there can't be regulation pushed that would affect things like that (as well as the possible loopholes I mentioned prior) - in fact, I think that would be a good idea, but let's try not to hide behind 'the children' as shields. Because that is all this particular Republican politician who proposed this bill cares about.

(That all said, I think this is unlikely to pass, at least in the US, unless literally everywhere else does it)

Edited May 19, 2019 by Tryhard

[eclipse]

8 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Kids could also purchase literally almost anything (including virtual codes for a lot of games) online if someone leaves their PC with Amazon logged in. It's not any different.

Purchasing tangible things from an on-line site is more involved than in-app purchases.

9 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Kids could also purchase literally almost anything (including virtual codes for a lot of games) online if someone leaves their PC with Amazon logged in. It's not any different.

My bigger problem is that this is essentially the new version of politicians attempting to ban violent video games or rap music because children can sometimes have access to them instead of it being the parents responsibility. This is a Republican senator proposing this, who probably has never played a game in his life.The example he gave for an exploitative game was Candy Crush.

And we all know how those attempts fell flat on their face, but since it's something that the majority of people dislike, now I'm supposed to change a principle because 'lootbox bad'. I agree, lootbox bad, but that doesn't mean we should make up some bullshit excuse about protecting children if you want to tackle the issue. You need to actually have an argument for wanting to force companies to take them out through regulation, and the one that is currently being proposed can easily be applied to things people actually like, CCGs and Gachas (pause here for laughter).

It won't even fix the problem by itself, because undoubtedly EA and their insidious marketing teams will find a way to monetise some other scheme that involves going back to online passes for pre-owned games, going even harder on the season pass phenomenon, or selling excessive DLC that functions in the same way but bypasses any classification of micro-transactions or lootboxes.

It's made even harder by the fact that games allow for payment online instead of being there in person, so there is no way to verify if the purchaser is a child, so therefore we need to ban the entire industry from things like micro-transactions or in-game currencies for everyone. Does that sound reasonable?

There's special laws regarding how children's data can be handled - this isn't a new thing.  Apple, at least, has parental controls on children's accounts..  I think it should be extended to adults - and this includes lootboxes.  But the focus is children, hence why I'm looking at it from that point of view.

I have ideas regarding how it can be fixed - a decent gacha game won't notice (as they've already implemented it. . .though I hope it bites KHUX in the ass, because their implementation is awful beyond belief), while the actual shitty practices will be hit hard.  For example, X number of loot box purchases unlocks a one-time thing where the player can choose which thing they want out of the box, then resets.  The limit would have to be lowish (so no crap like 200 tries at $5/pull).  In other words, limit the amount of randomness - some should be allowed, but not so much that it feels like purchases are mandatory.  While EA probably would find a loophole, it would be a start.

9 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Until a better argument is provided, or until people just admit that they do have consistency and it should also apply to CCGs and Gacha games (which I have no problem with if you do believe that), then this is basically on the level with Jack Thompson wanting to ban violent video games because children may play them, but gets a pass because 'lootbox bad'. Kids always found a way to watch, listen to or play things they shouldn't be, whether through their parents ignorance or whatever else.

This is not to say that there can't be regulation pushed that would affect things like that (as well as the possible loopholes I mentioned prior) - in fact, I think that would be a good idea, but let's try not to hide behind 'the children' as shields. Because that is all this particular Republican politician who proposed this bill cares about.

(That all said, I think this is unlikely to pass, at least in the US, unless literally everywhere else does it)

 

CCGs can bypass the gacha entirely by buying singles.  This is legal, and what a nontrivial number of players do.  If it wasn't, the companies that made the games wouldn't host their tournaments at card shops, with said singles prominently displayed for sale.

While CCGs are probably the closest to RL gacha, it's a physical product - hence why it can be resold to those that have no patience for pack-busting.  I bought four cards I needed yesterday, for far cheaper than if I'd attempted to pull it out of packs.

This is on a very different level, IMO.  The correlation between violent video games and real-life violence didn't have much solid research behind it.  The mechanisms behind gambling (and opening up something with a variable reward) do.  Gambling is illegal for minors, so there is a legitimate leg for this thing to stand on.

My guess is that if this does pass, it'll be neutered to the point where it's not useful.

[Tryhard]

In a somewhat related development, the lootbox law in Belgium means FEH will be getting pulled.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/fire-emblem-heroes-animal-crossing-pocket-camp-will-cease-to-exist-in-belgium-microtransaction-laws-issue.118161/

[eclipse]

11 hours ago, Tryhard said:

In a somewhat related development, the lootbox law in Belgium means FEH will be getting pulled.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/fire-emblem-heroes-animal-crossing-pocket-camp-will-cease-to-exist-in-belgium-microtransaction-laws-issue.118161/

. . .surprisingly late, too.  The Square games peaced out quite some time back.

[Acacia Sgt]

Hmm, that's an interesting development. I suppose now we know what is likely to be Heroes' fate elsewhere if/once other countries implement similar laws.

---

On recent news, it seems the bill now has bipartisan support in the senate.

Edited May 23, 2019 by Acacia Sgt