Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 104 posts

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#21

Post by a_t48 »

araes wrote: post #20
a_t48 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how this would work out for Magic the Gathering. Currently card prices are mostly set by the community, because of relative power, rareness, and demand. I'm not sure if WotC can make accurate prices up front.

Actually, WotC and the community are quite good at predicting price and market forces on their game. They have ~20,000 cards and 25 years of sales, and numerous quick factors for determining approx. card value. Concepts like the "curve" (mana vs P/T), and the value of evergreen keywords greatly help. If there was ever a topic for big data. Naturally, there are surprises (ex: Standard deck that becomes overly popular…

I stand corrected.

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#22

Post by mewse »

At the risk of engaging in what-aboutism, I am amused that they think that right now is the ideal time to spend time thinking about the potential harm of loot boxes, when they're doing nothing to address the potential harm of gun violence. And have given up on protecting DACA recipients.

Don't get me wrong; I'm no fan of loot boxes. I just am amused (although sadly not particularly surprised) that this is apparently the most urgent issue on anybody's pile this week.

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#23

Post by cromwellian »

mewse wrote: post #22

At the risk of engaging in what-aboutism, I am amused that they think that right now is the ideal time to spend time thinking about the potential harm of loot boxes, when they're doing nothing to address the potential harm of gun violence. And have given up on protecting DACA recipients. Don't get me wrong; I'm no fan of loot boxes. I just am amused (although sadly not particularly surprised) that this is apparently…

Gun control provokes intense whataboutism: "Thoughts and Prayers" "What about mental health!" "What about MS-13 and immigration?" "What about drugs?" What about everything except considering restrictions on ownership, licensing, etc.

A terrorist can kill a few dozen people once every few years, and suddenly we need a massive surveillance state, hundreds of billions spent on military and intelligence, "extreme vetting" of immigrants, travel bans, etc. But domestic mass shootings can happen on a weekly basis and it's business as usual.

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#24

Post by 111_1_111 »

I don't understand this. You don't risk anything by opening a loot box. If you're going to ban loot boxes because they cause kids to play more video games, why not just ban video games entirely?

Also, the definition of loot box seems like it could be very fuzzy. For example, in the pokemon games when you walk through grass you run the risk of running into a wild pokemon. Sometimes the pokemon you run into is a rare pokemon that you want to catch and sometimes it's something you've already caught and don't care about. Is this a "loot box"? I know I sure spent a lot of time walking through grass on those pokemon games as a kid.

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#25

Post by crag »

mewse wrote: post #22

At the risk of engaging in what-aboutism, I am amused that they think that right now is the ideal time to spend time thinking about the potential harm of loot boxes, when they're doing nothing to address the potential harm of gun violence. And have given up on protecting DACA recipients. Don't get me wrong; I'm no fan of loot boxes. I just am amused (although sadly not particularly surprised) that this is apparently…

It's an election year. Promoting "gun control" of any kind will cost you votes (not to mention the non-stop attacks from the NRA). While promoting "loot box/gambling control" will gain you votes.

It's just that simple.

Now if I were EA (and other publishers) I'd throw 1/2 million at this senator. The best way to get him to shut up.

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#26

Post by crag »

cromwellian wrote: post #23
mewse wrote: post #22

At the risk of engaging in what-aboutism, I am amused that they think that right now is the ideal time to spend time thinking about the potential harm of loot boxes, when they're doing nothing to address the potential harm of gun violence. And have given up on protecting DACA recipients. Don't get me wrong; I'm no fan of loot boxes. I just am amused (although sadly not particularly surprised) that this is apparently…

Gun control provokes intense whataboutism: "Thoughts and Prayers" "What about mental health!" "What about MS-13 and immigration?" "What about drugs?" What about everything except considering restrictions on ownership, licensing, etc. A terrorist can kill a few dozen people once every few years, and suddenly we need a massive surveillance state, hundreds of billions spent on military and intelligence, "extreme vetting…

I'd up-vote you twice if I could. Well said!

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#27

Post by Waterluvian »

eveningcoffee wrote: post #2

It is actually a very good point. Now that I look into it, I think we should also ban all the booster packages for the board games. These packages can contain or may not contain valuable card and you are effectively gambling when you buy one. It can also become very addictive.

I saw that a ton as a teen. I always felt sick at the idea so I had a built deck at a set price. But friends would buy a pack. Then just one more. Just one more. Okay last one.

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#28

Post by ficklepickle »

The biggest issue with the games kids are playing is that they are now specifically designed to exploit the young brains reward system, effectively engraining addictive behavior. Getting rid of loot boxes won't change that.

I would say the biggest group at risk are under-stimulated, under-supervised children that may spend 8 hours a day hunched over a smartphone.

It will be interesting to see the long term implications of that behavior.

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#29

Post by Shivetya »

cromwellian wrote: post #23
mewse wrote: post #22

At the risk of engaging in what-aboutism, I am amused that they think that right now is the ideal time to spend time thinking about the potential harm of loot boxes, when they're doing nothing to address the potential harm of gun violence. And have given up on protecting DACA recipients. Don't get me wrong; I'm no fan of loot boxes. I just am amused (although sadly not particularly surprised) that this is apparently…

Gun control provokes intense whataboutism: "Thoughts and Prayers" "What about mental health!" "What about MS-13 and immigration?" "What about drugs?" What about everything except considering restrictions on ownership, licensing, etc. A terrorist can kill a few dozen people once every few years, and suddenly we need a massive surveillance state, hundreds of billions spent on military and intelligence, "extreme vetting…

Gun control runs afoul of both the second and fourth amendments. Privacy concerns, depending on how its violate runs mostly amok of the fourth and sometimes the first.

the real issue privacy issues don't rank as high is because both political parties use the surveillance state to spy on Americans to curtail the other party more than protect the people. its a tool to them to intimidate people who get out of line

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#30

Post by Shivetya »

subroutine wrote: post #15

Not taking a stance for or against this policy. But based on personal experience, I always spend the most money on these damn random draw "loot boxes", especially if I get a crappy draw my first turn (specifically thinking about puzzle and dragons).

wargaming, a Russian company who puts out World of Tanks/Warplanes/Warships seems to skirt the issue but insuring the value of the other items; not the most desired; is equal to the cost of the loot box. This turns the issue into, they decide the value of all items but players may not agree.

I do believe the recent EA dust up is a clearer indication of when loot boxes cross the line into gambling. however if they guaranteed an item of specific value you could buy otherwise "but with other items" they might technically not be gambling. Its gambling when you have a chance to lose your money. (at least how I understand it)

Post reply on HN