Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us • Hacker News Board

Re: Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us

#241

Post by JabavuAdams » Mon, Dec 14, 2015, 11:18 PM UTC

justinhj wrote: post #236

JabavuAdams wrote: post #234

Terrible article, but raises some good issues. Would like to see a better discussion of those issues. One problem that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere is that in my experience a large proportion of people in the games industry are essentially game addicts. They've forgone other opportunities, higher pay, IRL social interactions, family duties, etc. due to their passion for games. It's hard to have a serious conver…

I've been in the game industry for 20 years and I don't recognize this image you've painted at all

Glad to hear it.

Re: Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us

#242

Post by Silhouette » Tue, Dec 15, 2015, 12:00 AM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #73

Silhouette wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people have better impulse control than others; it's not the state's job to regulate the impulses of their populaces, or regulate systems that know how to manipulate them. Out of genuine curiosity, do you feel the same about state intervention in other situations, away from gaming, that involve a more knowledgeable or deliberate party taking advantage of a less knowledgeable or deliberate one? For example, what…

Is it OK for bars or clubs to offer a happy hour early in the evening to get patrons going, then turn up the heat and make it hard to find water so those patrons keep ordering more drinks and getting more and more drunk throughout the evening? You honestly believe we need a law against this? God forbid a restaurant owner offer any promotion whatsoever.

I think we probably do need a basic principle enshrined in law that prohibits exploiting the vulnerability of someone who, for whatever reason, is not capable of making reasonable decisions or of acting to protect themselves in a normal way.

What follows from that principle, and where any lines or grey areas are drawn, obviously depends on the specifics of the situation. I'm not generally in favour of having lots of overly specific laws. I think in most cases, responsible adults will agree on whether any particular action has clearly crossed the intended ethical and legal line anyway. Where there is more room for reasonable disagreement, that's what courts are for.

Re: Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us

#243

Post by lemming » Tue, Dec 15, 2015, 8:57 PM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #173

lemming wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be in favour of anyone selling homeopathic "remedies" being banned from calling themselves a health professional.

I don't think this relates back to the topic at hand, though. Disqualifying these games as "games" probably wouldn't have much if any impact.

It was in response to the parent question about what to do about alternative remedies.

Re: Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us

#244

Post by nikdaheratik » Wed, Dec 16, 2015, 6:04 AM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #147

bduerst wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason we have "paternalistic" organizations like the FTC and SEC is because many parties make informed, consenting agreements, and don't obligate them. How are you going to enforce your $100k agreement without a "paternalistic" organization? Consumer rights and protections are what creates scalable trade by enabling trust in our society.

Laws that arm people with more information are great. I'm a big fan. I'm not a fan of laws that prohibit certain contracts no matter how informed both parties are. It's sometimes necessary when there's a huge asymmetry in power, like in landlord-tenant relationships and in standard-form contracts that waive all liability (interestingly, this is something courts have recognized as a matter of common law, even in the a…

Except, you know slavery is illegal even if both parties are informed adults who could agree to such a contract. Same for indentured servitude, or selling organs. And these are just the most obvious examples.

There is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere in terms of what can and cannot be allowed in contracts, the question is where to draw it. The other obvious point is whether both parties are acting in good faith, which is why there are laws about fraud on the books (even if they aren't always enforced for some financial industries).

Re: Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us

#245

Post by Natsu » Fri, Dec 18, 2015, 5:55 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #194

TeMPOraL wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's your own fault. The difference I see is that H-D stuff's value isn't entirely dependent on the company itself; they don't control it past the point of sale. They can't change their mind and unmake your bike, or your biker jacket, or your local H-D club.

That goes back to my statement above about the problem being an inability to resell.

It's not quite the same though. With digital things, the very existence of it depends on a third party who might close up shop whenever without warning. If Harley Davidson goes bust someday, all the bikes they made don't just vanish into thin air.

This is independent of whether or not you can resell them. Whether or not you're permitted to resell the items won't matter any more if they all vanish due to a company going out of business or leaving the game behind.