51–60 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that mean you're also in favor of ending state sponsored lottories, raffles, etc...?
I am. Unless it's not-for-profit or single use (e.g. lottery revenue going to schools), then it's a regressive tax on people who don't understand probability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that mean you're also in favor of ending state sponsored lottories, raffles, etc...?
I would be in favor of ending state sponsored lotteries. I could see an argument in favor of them if: * Sellers were obligated to disclose the odds of winning the jackpot at the time of purchase punishable to the same extent as underage liquor sales * The state was required to render, upon request, financial consultation at the burden of the state to winners whose consultation can, at the winner's discretion, be reco…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like an argument to remove all randomization from purchases.
I am fully supportive of that.
That is more than a little heavy handed, if not a downright Draconian economic policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think there have been two, maaaaybe three expansion sets in the multi-decade history of the game where the average price for selling all cards in a booster pack exceeded the price of the booster pack itself.
This is a stunning display of ignorance about how the games industry actually works today. Loot boxes, like how Blizzard implements them in Overwatch, are the absolute best business model in an industry that's otherwise filled with predatory pay-to-play DLC business models. With Overwatch, you pay $30 up-front for the game, and that's it. You don't have to pay a cent more, no matter how often or how long you play it.…
First off, she never mentioned Overwatch. She mentioned lootboxes as a whole. When you view the greater picture of lootboxes, arguing that they're somehow more ethical because one game does it better than others isn't a particularly strong argument. Assuming that her attack on lootboxes is a focused attack on Overwatch would be categorically incorrect. Second, there is constant pressure to buy boxes. You have various…
My apologies, I should have explained the context. Perhaps you don't follow gaming news, but the whole reason that this is an issue on Hassan's radar is that there has been a lot of criticism recently targeted at Overwatch specifically over their use of lootboxes, even though other games use lootboxes too.
So no, Hassan doesn't mention Overwatch by name, but in the current context, it's pretty relevant to discuss.
> And the option for 'no support' did not seem to be a problem for say, League of Legends. Which until recently was surviving without any sort of lootbox paradigm based off of buying cosmetics. SFV is also similar.
...you're using League of Legends as a point of comparison? LoL uses almost the exact same system as Overwatch, except some of the items do actually have an impact on the gameplay, introducing a pay-to-win dynamic. It's strictly worse than what Overwatch does. SFV uses a DLC model.
That's what actual pressure to spend money looks like - "If you spend more money, you will literally be a better player".
> Second, there is constant pressure to buy boxes.
Compared to any other game of its ilk - including the ones you mentioned - there's basically zero pressure. You're complaining that they give out free boxes, except the alternative to that would mean that there is no free way to obtain the items, and also no other way to obtain them except by random chance and spending money.
I can't imagine a better system that still provides a revenue stream for the company without affecting the game quality, and both of the games you've mentioned are strictly worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the very least, all purchases should include info about the randomization. It shouldn't be legal to sell randomized products while keeping the randomization secret.
Do you think that will prevent the supposed harm? Lottery tickets include odds on the back of the cards. I think that has a very small effects on discouraging play. And those odds are pretty straight forward (1 in 2,000,000 for a 500k payout). I imagine information about how randomization works would be even more indecipherable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlike the US, the UK has quite liberal gambling legislation. You can legally bet online, there's a casino in every town, there's a betting shop on every high street, pubs can legally install slot machines, you'll see adverts for bookmakers during football matches. Crucially, it's all regulated . You have to be 18 to enter a betting shop or a casino. A slot machine has to be inspected by the Gambling Commission and m…
I don't disagree with you, but what about cases where the contents of the loot box can't be traded or sold? Or I suppose one could sell their account with the desirable item but that may be disallowed by ToS and get the account banned. I dislike loot boxes but I have a hard time seeing it as gambling if you explicitly can not liquidate the assets you receive from it. Then it's just a grab bag.
It's true that x might not be able to converted to fiat or resold.
That makes it effectively equivalent to a raffle, which often put restrictions on reselling similar to these cases.
Raffles are considered a form of gambling, and are heavily regulated, in the UK[0] and Australia [1].
[0] http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-the-public/Fundrais...
[1] https://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/gambling/raffle/licensee-resour...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am. Unless it's not-for-profit or single use (e.g. lottery revenue going to schools), then it's a regressive tax on people who don't understand probability.
Are there any lotteries in the US that don't directly fund public sectors like education or elderly care? I thought that was how lotteries became legal across the states.
What they didn't tell us is it wasn't additional funds to existing budgets, but they would pilfer the existing budget and replace it with lottery proceeds.
Lying, smarmy politicians. You'd figure we'd learn by now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlike the US, the UK has quite liberal gambling legislation. You can legally bet online, there's a casino in every town, there's a betting shop on every high street, pubs can legally install slot machines, you'll see adverts for bookmakers during football matches. Crucially, it's all regulated . You have to be 18 to enter a betting shop or a casino. A slot machine has to be inspected by the Gambling Commission and m…
I don't disagree with you, but what about cases where the contents of the loot box can't be traded or sold? Or I suppose one could sell their account with the desirable item but that may be disallowed by ToS and get the account banned. I dislike loot boxes but I have a hard time seeing it as gambling if you explicitly can not liquidate the assets you receive from it. Then it's just a grab bag.
Why not make it illegal to make randomness a component of games entirely? Ban the possession of dice. Make it illegal to be rewarded with in-game content just for doing well. Games should be like movies. The idea of manipulating people with feelings of achievement is clearly abusive and addictive. No more winning teddy bears for your girl at carnivals. Don't let people unlock things like high scores and new levels, n…
> But I'm also not for out-of-touch Senators urging us all to think of children when the "children" in question need to have a bank account. It's not just out of touch senators, it's experts in problem gambling who think loot boxes need to be looked at.
Gaming as an addiction is a much much larger problem than lootboxes as an addiction. If this is truly about addiction then where is the movement to restrict the amount of time people spend playing video games everyday?