Rendered at 03:39:47 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
hedora 4 minutes ago [-]
I wish they'd add mandatory labeling. I'm over 16 and have no interest in games with loot boxes.
nba456_ 1 hours ago [-]
I never understood why video game lootboxes get regulated while real-life lootboxes like pokemon cards don't.
benoau 1 hours ago [-]
Because in real life the store clerk won't let a child spend $1000 on their parents card making purchases again and again and again and again and again, but a video game will let a child do it in less than an hour and consider that a success and try to understand how to stimulate another child to do so.
TheAceOfHearts 5 minutes ago [-]
Pokemon cards have gone full circle, GameStop now has an online service where you can gamble on cards digitally just like lootboxes. You buy a roll at different price points to win a PSA graded card from a set of probabilities, and then you can sell it back for 90% market value to GameStop or have them ship it to you.
The proliferation of gambling over so many domains has radicalized me against it in a way that I didn't think would've been possible a few years ago.
djtango 11 minutes ago [-]
Pokemon cards are addictive and fun but they're kind of analogue. Loot boxes are more like slot machines - they have flashing lights, animations and jingles to hook you in deeper. And because the lootboxes are in game they can be tuned in frequency and payout just right to keep you playing in a way boring cards could never be (beyond just boring probabilities)
jayd16 12 minutes ago [-]
I will say card packs are somewhat useful for drafting formats where you need a sealed pack of random unknown cards.
Just ripping packs hurts my soul. What a waste.
mikkupikku 56 minutes ago [-]
Those are gambling too, and were criticize as such not just now but also when they were new (but people ignored that criticism because pokemon was hype and adults complaining about trendy things are always uncool and ignored.)
teeray 46 minutes ago [-]
There’s something to be said about the visibility of gambling as a signal to people that someone may have a problem. Gambling on your phone just looks like being on your phone. It even improves access to the addiction. Needing to go to a casino looks a lot different, provides some friction, and could spur intervention. The same could be said about loot boxes vs buying Pokemon cards in a store.
idiotsecant 52 minutes ago [-]
When you buy a pokemon card at least you get a card
steele 57 minutes ago [-]
This is the same argument Valve is presenting.
rincebrain 20 minutes ago [-]
(Opinions my own, naturally.)
I think they're right, really.
Obviously you need to require enough friction that the experiences are comparable (e.g. no letting someone impulse buy 100 times in half a second without having to re-type their "I am an adult" payment info or something analogous, possibly just a hard ceiling for everyone), but I don't think you can ban everything that touches the same sharp edge, and you can't mandate that parents teach their kids how to handle it.
So I think the best you can do is put hard limits on people's ability to hurt themselves without at least an "are you really sure" check, and maybe something like not allowing cash in the exchange without adult verification so the kids might, at worst, gamble their FunBux they earned playing a game and get burned on having lost a lot of FunBux, rather than their or their parents' cash. (This doesn't stop parents from giving their kids their credit card, but that's not really a problem you can solve...)
gmadsen 26 minutes ago [-]
Physicality. You don’t even own digital games, let alone cosmetics for your digital game license.
EQmWgw87pw 5 minutes ago [-]
Because neither loot boxes nor Pokémon cards are actually that addicting. There is no known link to actual gambling and these mechanics. The reason loot boxes get regulated at all is because people simply don’t like them, and they scream and cry for someone to fix it. Purely emotional response. Very bad precedent.
yacin 1 hours ago [-]
should probably just ban gambling for children but seems like a good first step.
mikkupikku 58 minutes ago [-]
Do they let 16 year olds gamble in casinos in Europe? Odd to ban it for kids but only some kids.
pdpi 19 minutes ago [-]
If you're forbidding people from doing things they could do yesterday, it's best to be a little conservative with your scope.
16-yo kids might do some amount of part time work, and should at least have enough of a concept of money to understand why pressing the "more loot boxes" button is a Bad Idea. They're also old enough that they might potentially have their own bank account and their own card, which then caps the damages to their allowance.
idiotsecant 53 minutes ago [-]
Pretty much all of Europe is 18-21.
erxam 26 minutes ago [-]
Okay? How will this actually change anything?
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.
cortesoft 3 minutes ago [-]
Well, this is going along with all the new requirements for companies to actually verify ages, so it won't be up to the parents.
hsuduebc2 38 minutes ago [-]
Ok, so we all agreed that it is gambling. But for some reason we let kids gamble but only after they reach sixteen? This feels weird.
The proliferation of gambling over so many domains has radicalized me against it in a way that I didn't think would've been possible a few years ago.
Just ripping packs hurts my soul. What a waste.
I think they're right, really.
Obviously you need to require enough friction that the experiences are comparable (e.g. no letting someone impulse buy 100 times in half a second without having to re-type their "I am an adult" payment info or something analogous, possibly just a hard ceiling for everyone), but I don't think you can ban everything that touches the same sharp edge, and you can't mandate that parents teach their kids how to handle it.
So I think the best you can do is put hard limits on people's ability to hurt themselves without at least an "are you really sure" check, and maybe something like not allowing cash in the exchange without adult verification so the kids might, at worst, gamble their FunBux they earned playing a game and get burned on having lost a lot of FunBux, rather than their or their parents' cash. (This doesn't stop parents from giving their kids their credit card, but that's not really a problem you can solve...)
16-yo kids might do some amount of part time work, and should at least have enough of a concept of money to understand why pressing the "more loot boxes" button is a Bad Idea. They're also old enough that they might potentially have their own bank account and their own card, which then caps the damages to their allowance.
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.