After my first 6 packets of trash I started printing copies of them and reselling them for 40¢ each (50¢ for more rare ones) making a little fortune (3€ a day).

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:

Copyright infringement: every parent's worst nightmare.

Invalid for play though - though I thought at the time that Pokémon at the time had very heavy ante i.e. you put up cards at random to play fore.

Invalid for tournament play, certainly, but between two kids for playground bragging rights, not invalid if the people playing the game agree beforehand.

Interesting ethics you have there - and also sounds like the biggest school bully would win

Why? If anyone can print the cards and therefore play the deck that they want then the game comes down to a limited amount of luck (as decks are randomized before play) and skill in both play and construction of decks.

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.

I thought that was interesting, and I think I agree. Specifically with the section about printing your own decks at home to play with friends.

To me, that sounds like the optimal way to play trading card games.

Really? You think it's wrong to copy in paper another game that tries to profit off artificial scarcity?

It’s weird in the sense that it didn’t seem to bother anybody even though the same laws restricting gambling were in effect.

It bothered me back then, and I wasn't alone. Here's an article from 1999 in the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/24/nyregion/suit-claims-poke...

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.

> 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.

For me personally it's about double dipping.

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.

Game A costs, but the loot is free. Game B is free, but the loot boxes cost. Game C is half-price, and has half-price loot boxes.

Why is C a problem? It's a mid-point between A and B.

Parent didn't say it was a problem, just stated a preference. I agree with them. I've been buying games for 30 years (good grief) and suddenly they want me to pay inside the game. Just feels bad.

I don't mind paying for good content, but pay to win is a deal breaker.

Since the odds can be manipulated from moment to moment, there is no way to know if game C really has half-price loot boxes. The only way to be sure that you’re not paying full price anyway (via manipulated statistics and game mechanics) is for there not to be any loot boxes at all.

That sounds like a problem with paid loot-boxes, not "double-dipping". Loot boxes might be double-priced even if the game is free by your same logic. There would be no way to know.

> says something about how society has progressed in the past two decades

Or regressed, depending on your views about personal liberty and what the obligations of the state are.

Was it also a regression when governments around the world banned children from gambling in casinos?

I guess it depends on where you draw the line on when liberty should be taken away from children (or their guardians) to make choices on what they are/are not allowed to do.

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?

>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 agree with you that video games can be unhealthy. But why should these crates be legislated, just because their outcome is random? Does it really present any more harm than video games and in-game purchases in general?

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?

>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.

>I believe casinos pose a risk of not only spending money, but also exposure to much more harmful activities (drugs, prostitution, violence)

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

From the sarcasm I am assuming you disagree with me. My point is that phone games don't add to the risk being near any of any of these actually harmful (to a minor) activities. Casinos do add to that risk in some non-zero way.

And working in coal mines.

Spending money on virtual games is miles away from child labor. I don't think you'll find very many people in here arguing that anti-child labor laws are a bad thing, so I find your comment a bit of a red-herring.

There's something fundamentally different about the dynamic when you have to actually go out into the real world, get a store, etc. It drastically slows down one's ability to get themselves into trouble.

I don't know if it factors in here much, but another point is that you also generally can't re-sell items from loot boxes, whereas at least you can sell the cards afterwards to help defray costs.

They are not equivalent.

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.