Is that so weird? I came to the conclusion that industry was gambling when I was a kid. I saw my friends spend their allowance on those packs of cards, open them up, then become disappointed because they only received "trash". Yet again and again they'd do it. It seemed totally irrational to me.
It lasted a week before other parents were incredibly annoyed by this. Aaaaand they kept paying a lot of euros to buy real ones.
:shrug:
This has become a more pronounced issue as realistic counterfeits of Magic: The Gathering cards that are no longer in print and in some cases cost more than a car are starting to appear on the market. They can be detected by a trained eye, but to they look "close enough" to a casual or even sharp observer. While the people producing the cards and discussing their quality often say "these cards are intended for use in decks but not to trade or sale as if they were real cards", some in the wider Magic: The Gathering community feel very strongly that legal action should be taken against the producers, sellers, and in some cases, even the users of these cards.
On a practical side, using non-genuine, non-WotC produced cards is against sanctioned tournament rules - from Friday Night Magic up to the Pro Tour, but what right do others have to tell me what I can and cannot allow in non-sanctioned play or at Commander night with my friends?
That said, my friends and I often "cheapass draft" in our homes - we generate random boosters, print them on paper, cut and fit them atop bulk commons in sleeves, and then draft/battle for the cost of six sheets of color laser print. No money changes hands, we're never going to try and pass off these obvious printouts as anything other than playtesting.
Just figured I'd expound on the ethics - both societal and personal - around this topic since you questioned them.
To me, that sounds like the optimal way to play trading card games.
Obviously the objections to pokemon cards never reached any sort of critical mass as objections to loot boxes seem to be. Maybe that says something about differences between the two industries, or maybe that says something about how society has progressed in the past two decades.
I think it says more about how little friction there is to click a button, spend money, and get a loot box vs walking to the store with cash in hand to get a physical pack of cards. Sure, I could drop $100 on a booster box, but it still required that I had the money in hand and had to physically go somewhere to get it. Those cards also took up space and had to be kept organized to keep track of valued vs non-valued cards. It took a lot of work to get that hit of dopamine, whereas now a 15-year-old kid can sit down at a computer and within 30 seconds start dumping tons of money into loot boxes.
I'll play a free game that is monetized via loot boxes. But I won't buy a game that then requires me to buy loot boxes to do better in the game because in my mind I already paid for the game and shouldn't have to pay any more.
Why is C a problem? It's a mid-point between A and B.
I don't mind paying for good content, but pay to win is a deal breaker.
Or regressed, depending on your views about personal liberty and what the obligations of the state are.
Personally, I believe casinos pose a risk of not only spending money, but also exposure to much more harmful activities (drugs, prostitution, violence). These other risks have to factor into the equation, and for playing a game on a computer/phone, those risks just aren't there like they are in a casino. That's why I have a separate opinion on loot crates vs casinos.
I guess what I am getting at is that loot crates can only be a waste of money, but kids already spend their money on other "wasteful" activities like purchasing video games, so why should there be any difference just because the mechanics of the game are different?
yes, because the mechanism of gambling is addictive. (this too applies to subsets of video games as well, but at least most of them don't allow open-ended money spending)
Obviously it depends on everybody's definition of liberty, but most people seem to be happy to, as a society, put limits on the consumption of goods that foster unhealthy, addictive behaviour in individuals and cause financial or personal damage.
I for example don't have a problem with video games that foster creativity, problem solving and leave children with genuinely satisfying experiences. I am concerned about social media and games that only implement stick and carrot mechanisms to maximize the time children spend in front of them.
I spent a good amount of money on pay-to-win games when I was younger (buying weapon upgrades, more materials, gold, etc), the only difference was that the exact item was listed-- no surprises. Why should anyone besides my guardian decide whether or not that counts as "unhealthy, addictive behavior"? I could have bought a nearly endless supply of these in-game items that really served no purpose just as much as people do with loot crates.
Should we in-game purchases for those in-game items too, under the premise that purchasing them is unbounded, unhealthy and addictive?
I think that the premise is a little weaker for straight up purchases because the uncertainty associated with gambling is what makes it so exciting, but yes if we would observe that a lots of children or families are unable to manage their finances and that this negatively impacts the financial behaviour of especially young adults, sure I don't see any problem with regulating them and limiting the use of those mechanisms in videogames.
Yeah, as a kid it was always very annoying how everything but gambling was easily accessible.
Nobody would card me when going to a bar, brothel or when buying drugs... But entering a casino? heh
Collecting a series of stamps or collecting cards are very different from a dopamine drip which sits on your phone and can follow you everywhere.
SV spends all its time to make frictionless interaction pushing people to manage their actions. UI UX design intended to be easier than using horrid things like paper cards.
Gambling systems designed to hit every known behavioral reinforcement schedule, interactive videos and graphics to make it immersive.
Collectible cards and loot boxes are similar the same way ancient alchemists are like a modern pharmaceutical company.
The article says they already did: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-04-19-the-netherland...
Different jurisdictions feel differently about this, I'm sure. If the collectible's company plays dumb and never acknowledges the secondary market, they'll be more likely to stay clear of legal regulation.
After all, they're just selling piece of cardboard. What the people choose do with those pieces of cardboard is their prerogative, wink, wink.
Regarding trading card games, they are indeed awfully closed to gambling; and they are in fact the main defense of the game publishers, arguing that this is just a "collect and play" type of game, and isn't gambling.
But isn't the interactivity, the bells and wistles, animations of the lootbox openings closer to addictive reward patterns than just opening a plastic card booster pack ?
This, for the majority of IAP, is super untrue, unless you mean selling on a secondary market. If this is what you mean, then Wizards of the Coast better start worrying because anyone buying rares from the local gaming shop is now engaging in gambling and, by your logic, responsible by WotC.
In fact, the big problem here is precedence. How long do you think it will take before a litigious company starts targeting "physical" lootboxes like MtG or Pokemon or any physical variable reward package. The mechanics are the same, the reward rarity weight can be exactly the same, just the medium has changed.
This law is dangerous, because you could have gotten the same result (protect children/persons susceptible to skinner box mechanics) with a little more nuance.
Also, the big losers here are decent apps that don't have predatory IAP that are caught in the crossfire.
It's kind of shocking the lack of foresight being seen in this thread.
Yes, they do the same thing. Of course they should be hit just the same.
- The physical card packs have predetermined and known probabilities.
- The 'opening' ceremony is rather benign and not designed to stimulate
- Once printed and distributed no further psychological tweaking mechanisms can be employed to 'hook' the player
(2/3) agreed there is a difference, although it was still magical as a child and there was definitely something calling me back. A lot of those packs were interesting only because I watched 100 episodes of the greatest adventurer known to me (Ash Ketchum) and my own adventures playing Pokemon on the gameboy for 100+ hours.
> For example, if the player purchased a particular weapon, the microtransaction engine may match the player in a gameplay session in which the particular weapon is highly effective, giving the player an impression that the particular weapon was a good purchase. This may encourage the player to make future purchases to achieve similar gameplay results.
https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/how-activision-uses...
ERSB seems like a good mechanism.
That said, an "AO" rating would indeed have a chilling effect on store shelves (since most retailers don't even want to carry AO games at all). It could be feasible to make loot boxes an automatic elevation to ESRB AO / PEGI 18 / etc. should those organizations want to do so (and hopefully they would indeed want to do so).
Depending on the case it might be gambling, it might be not - like for example a Picture Album, you can usually buy the missing cards for a flat fee (per missing card)
It's not about protecting daddy's credit card; gambling can be an extremely addictive and corrupting activity, one that children should not be exposed to as part of their daily gaming.
Help me understand, because I don't, with some cursory Googling. Specifically, where does the line start and end here, and where on a scale are we with:
* Kinder Eggs / Happy Meal Toys
* MtG / Pokemon Card boxes
* Loot Boxes
Are all gambling? Are all "fully fledged gambling lunacy"? Genuine question asked in good faith.
Under the Kinder/Happy Meal is gambling logic, buying a bag of M&Ms could also be gambling because I "value" the blue ones the most and will receive a psudorandom number of blue M&Ms in the bag.
There is also a big difference in intent. Spend $5 on a Happy Meal and you are spending $4.90 for a meal and $0.10 for a piece of junk toy. And half the time you can ask for a specific toy anyway. On the other hand, spend $5 on loot boxes (or scratch tickets, lottery tickets) and there is no expectation of any other "value" than the potential value of your winnings.
Speeding is not dangerous in itself, until you actually hit somebody. By your logic there should be no speed limit anywhere but only charges when you hit somebody. The whole concept of regulation would also have to be scraped. Why would we have safety norms ? Not respecting them can lead to problems but well...
Maybe that is your view but I don't think it is widely shared.
Regarding safety: alcohol is perfectly legal and I'm sure we can all agree on that it is extremely (more so than other substances) detrimental to health and other members of the society. On the basis of banning things for safety, it should be banned. Fun fact: it isn't. Another fun fact: prohibition wouldn't work.
> Speeding is not dangerous in itself, until you actually hit somebody. By your logic there should be no speed limit anywhere but only charges when you hit somebody.
Elaborate on how speed limits work or how come they are effective, if they indeed are. Maybe we can work out something. :)
I would also like you to point out its relevance to the prohibition of loot crates for the "safety of our kids and vulnerable people".
Regarding speed limits, I recommend https://mises.org/library/privatization-roads-and-highways.
Additionally, I would rather you avoid the use of "by your logic" when in fact it does not conform to my "logic", it conforms to your perceived and false interpretation of what my logic might be, which you extended to an entirely different issue and imagine that it somehow undermines my argument. There is a difference between having speed limits enforced by X and assuming that the majority of people would respect it, and banning loot crates on the premise that it benefits the kids and vulnerable people while depriving "non-vulnerable" or "less vulnerable" adults completely on the same premise.
Please enlighten us to your alternate proposal to having a functioning society that is not based in a concept of a Code of Laws.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Z82avLO14
https://mises.org/library/society-without-state
https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state
https://mises.org/library/lessons-young-economist
[...]
My prior response was a very human one, equally as intellectually worthless as to the non-sequitor it is in reply to. By definition criminals don't follow laws. It's a circular kind of logic. Hence, trying to claim I am fallacious for highlighting this kind of lack of intellectual rigor I find insulting (Edit: Providing sources without commentary and telling me to "get informed" does not make a compelling argument). That I am expected to resolve this circular logic in a way that suits you is ideological entrapment that allows you to weasel out by playing the "I didn't claim that" card which I find boring and lazy and not an argument at all. Hence me trying to immediately resolve the ambiguity and move onto more productive areas of discussion by directly challenging the circular logic, and your predictable response trying to play said "I am being straw-manned". I prefer moving forward together, but cannot do it alone. I need your input.
I am sure you have great ideas but please consider working on your delivery.
Emphasis on tone, and I do get that. People don't like my tone, and they don't like being told they are at fault and that they are doing a terrible job at being parents. By "effectively", you mean by sugarcoating the message I'm trying to convey? Look, my point was that prohibition, when there are other alternatives that doesn't involve depriving other people of something, won't make you any less responsible for your child. Look at some of the responses to my comments regarding that, it's fascinating to think that some of these people may really be parents.
> By definition criminals don't follow laws. It's a circular kind of logic.
My problem is that people are too keen on regulating and prohibiting anything in the name of safety and whatnot and do actually believe it's going to be effective. It's not.
Let's say you - a law-abiding citizen - need a "good reason" which is determined by the court to carry a knife, and good reason does not include self-defense, and it excludes any knives that would be actually effective against perpetrators with a knife, for example. Now, by definition a criminal doesn't care about this law, and you have no ways of defending yourself. How is this legislation (prohibition) in favor of the law-abiding citizen? It straight out deprives said citizen from the means of defending themselves. In addition to that, pepper sprays are also illegal. How are you supposed to defend yourself by other than running away (not doable in many scenarios), not going outside and assuming they won't break into your house, or hiring bodyguards when you can't afford it? Just put yourself in a scenario. You are a law-abiding citizen and you live in London. I hope you agree that there are many areas that are not exactly safe. Do you like the fact that you are unable to defend yourself without breaking the law? Prohibition is not exactly on your side, is it? What do you think?
Sources:
https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms
For some fun:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 or the full response at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/203615.
It's a great game, isn't it?
This exactly describes cryptocurrency.
Is this the case for these loot boxes?
As a side note, I remember MtG being called "cardboard crack" back in the day, including by those who played it.
Or use the opening of packs for actual gaming with the various ways to play with them.
And it makes sense. You can buy, using real money, a virtual ticket for a virtual item. Then that virtual item can in turn often be sold to others for real money. In other words, players can participate by gambling real money in return for less or more real money.
In short, it is gambling. Not all countries make gambling illegal, but those who do, should treat loot boxes the same. And virtually all countries make gambling illegal for minors, and there's currently no working mechanism in play for 15 year olds not to be able to play these games.
Currently in the Netherlands it's required for the proceeds of loot boxes to be tradeable in the real world, giving them economic value, for it to be considered gambling. If it's purely virtual, it's not gambling but just part of the game. (you can question this of course.) The problem is that it didn't matter for the Dutch government whether the items were traded on external platforms (which are often in violation of the games EULA itself), or on a platform of the game itself.
What would help stay legit is for the games to prevent loot box items from being traded between characters at all.
Here's the weird thing though. My entire childhood was filled with opaque plastic packs of cards, pokemon cards, football cards etc. You didn't know which 5 cards were in there. The cards were semi-randomly distributed in the packs in the factory, just like these loot boxes are semi-randomly generated by an algorithm. And you'd pay, not knowing what you'd get. And indeed, sometimes you paid $10 for a pack with a rare pokemon you could sell for $100. That was gambling too under this definition.