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

71–80 of 104 posts

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

#71

Post by emodendroket »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #65
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friends son is constantly asking for more Pokémon cards. I’m not sure if there is any harm, but he’s in to it. I do wonder if regulation is the answer though. Shouldn’t we expect people (parents, here) to make their own choices?

I wonder about this because as a child I and my siblings were big into Pokémon cards. At the height of the hype my parents bought a 100 pack of booster packs and would periodically dangle them in front of us as rewards. In the end we got a lot of new cards and my parents got a decent amount of chores done. I’m about to turn 28 and I’ve never had any sort of gambling problem (but I have had my own other non Pokémon re…

I think that the lootboxes are far more optimized to exploit human tendencies. It's like a comparison between Facebook and letters.

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

#72

Post by emodendroket »

Waterluvian wrote: post #39
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friends son is constantly asking for more Pokémon cards. I’m not sure if there is any harm, but he’s in to it. I do wonder if regulation is the answer though. Shouldn’t we expect people (parents, here) to make their own choices?

I agree. I think regulation should focus on ensuring people have the facts and can make an informed decision, not make the decision for them.

Surely part of the concern here is that the audience for these games include children who are incapable of making an informed decision.

> Hassan urged the ESRB in the letter to examine whether loot boxes are being marketed "in an ethical and transparent way that adequately protects the developing minds of young children from predatory practices."

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

#73

Post by emodendroket »

scarface74 wrote: post #45
ficklepickle wrote: post #28

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 implicatio…

Where are kids getting the money from?

From their parents, often without their parents' knowledge or consent. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9928381/Boy-runs...

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

#74

Post by emodendroket »

crag wrote: post #25
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.

It is probably not the case that the stance itself would cost your votes, although, yes, the pro-gun lobby is much stronger.

Moving on, I have to wonder whether you read the article if you're referring to Maggie Hassan as "him" and missing the point that asking the ESRB to voluntarily take action is a pretty softball maneuver. I'm not sure you want to "shut up" someone saying this kind of stuff:

> Hassan, who said she heard about loot boxes from a constituent, took time during the hearing to highlight the FTC's previous finding that the ESRB is "one of the most effective voluntary enforcement boards" in entertainment. "That is why I am confident that the ESRB will take this seriously... We should be doing all we can to protect our children and to inform parents about their options when it comes to these types of games."

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

#75

Post by scarface74 »

emodendroket wrote: post #73
scarface74 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are kids getting the money from?

From their parents, often without their parents' knowledge or consent. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9928381/Boy-runs...

How are they doing that? Are they taking their parents credit cards?

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

#76

Post by emodendroket »

scarface74 wrote: post #75
emodendroket wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From their parents, often without their parents' knowledge or consent. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9928381/Boy-runs...

How are they doing that? Are they taking their parents credit cards?

No. Haven't you ever used an iOS or Android device? Your credit card information is saved. The default setting is that the password doesn't need to be entered again if you buy something in the next ten minutes or so after you last did (and were prompted for your password), so I guess what's probably happening in some cases is they're buying the game and giving the kid the iPad and then he's able to order a ton of DLC. Or maybe they have looser settings or the kids know the password.

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

#77

Post by scarface74 »

emodendroket wrote: post #76
scarface74 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are they doing that? Are they taking their parents credit cards?

No. Haven't you ever used an iOS or Android device? Your credit card information is saved. The default setting is that the password doesn't need to be entered again if you buy something in the next ten minutes or so after you last did (and were prompted for your password), so I guess what's probably happening in some cases is they're buying the game and giving the kid the iPad and then he's able to order a ton of DLC…

If you have Touch ID or Face ID turned on, you are prompted to authenticate for every purchase (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204030). I doubt too many people who own an iPhone don't have Touch ID enabled.

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

#78

Post by andrepd »

ubernostrum wrote: post #67
shakna wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You pay $x, with a chance to receive items worth between $0.1x and $10x. 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/Fundra…

Is Mario Kart regulated as a gambling game in the UK? Sure, you can't convert its items into money, but you can convert them into wins in the game. And it has a "random" item drop system that's known to be rigged.

You do not pay to open a Mario Kart item box.

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

#79

Post by emodendroket »

scarface74 wrote: post #77
emodendroket wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Haven't you ever used an iOS or Android device? Your credit card information is saved. The default setting is that the password doesn't need to be entered again if you buy something in the next ten minutes or so after you last did (and were prompted for your password), so I guess what's probably happening in some cases is they're buying the game and giving the kid the iPad and then he's able to order a ton of DLC…

If you have Touch ID or Face ID turned on, you are prompted to authenticate for every purchase ( https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204030 ). I doubt too many people who own an iPhone don't have Touch ID enabled.

I have been using Android for the past several years, so things may have changed on iOS. Nevertheless, it does seem like parents are getting hit with unexpected, huge bills from these games

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

#80

Post by jackstraw14 »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #34
Waterluvian wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My friends son is constantly asking for more Pokémon cards. I’m not sure if there is any harm, but he’s in to it. I do wonder if regulation is the answer though. Shouldn’t we expect people (parents, here) to make their own choices?

There's been plenty of time to decide whether to regulate this stuff. Loot boxes are fairly new but I was a Pokemon card addict like your friend's son, at age 10 in 1998. No one cared much back then, so now you have former Pokemon card addicts like me designing more elaborate game systems like this, and spending real money is like a bonus thrill in the game.

Ultimately people will make the decisions about what they do. Paid DLC is nearly loot boxing, but I guess the difference is there is more reasonable pressure when deciding whether to buy the DLC vs. a loot box? It's less pressure than a perceived threat in the game provoking your purchase, but it's funny how there is still a lot of pressure to buy DLC when you're simply on the Steam store page (giant green buy button, videos with 25% actual gameplay flashing at you, reviews urging you to buy the game, etc). But that's not a problem, it's only a problem when a real-money store is moved inside the game.

Post reply on HN