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

Games with loot boxes to get minimum 16 age rating across Europe

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 208 posts

Re: Games with loot boxes to get minimum 16 age rating across Europe

#141

Post by amiga386 »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #120
amiga386 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I am very sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_odds_betting_terminal Buying Pokemon cards in the hope of getting a specific rare one is a pretty niche form of addiction. Compared to walking into a shop, putting in £100 and getting nothing back, then another £100, then another, in the hope of getting £500... it's a lot more accessible, and can easily wipe out your life savings. Perhaps it's like arguing "whi…

Isn't this Fixed odds betting terminal how most slots work in North America as well? I'm aware of a few places where it isn't required. But the reality is if your RTP is something like 10%, not many people are coming by that often

A fixed-odds betting terminal is a type of slot machine. But unlike other categories of slot machine, it was (at one time) allowed a maximum bet of £100 and a maximum payout of £500. The RTP was around 95%, but allowing such a large maximum bet meant you could easily lose a lot of money, very quickly.

In 2019, the regulations changed to make the maximum bet £2 (50 times lower), in line with most other slot machines.

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/authorities/guide/page...

Re: Games with loot boxes to get minimum 16 age rating across Europe

#142

Post by casey2 »

kelnos wrote: post #64
shevy-java wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that is still a strange argument, because IF the argument is that loot boxes are so dangerous and addictive, why can, say, a 19 years old do it but a 18 years old can not? That makes no logical sense. One year is a magical difference suddenly?

This is a bit of a silly argument, given all the precedent in real life for this sort of thing. Can a 16 year old magically drive a car properly, but a 15 year old can't? Is an 18 year old magically much more capable doing their electoral civic duty than a 17 year old? Is a 21 year old magically able to consume alcohol responsibly, but a 20 year old isn't? (Or whatever age cutoffs are appropriate for your jurisdictio…

You implicitly assume that age is a proxy for ability, but that's not the reason for these laws. Age is a proxy for membership in a social class where discrimination is permitted. Otherwise we would prevent people from voting, which Americans did with Literacy/IQ tests and Blacks.

The actual reasons is that they hope to have captured the childs' reward system by then. Laura Cress must write articles for the BBC if she stopped she would lose her purpose in life and be forced into rehab, she would experience ego death and ostracization until she builds another system approved skill. Current society is heading off a demographic collapse due to this built up debt.

The real problem is that we have invented a society that is less rewarding than a slot machine, not that humans are somehow built wrong. A slot machine or hard drug can only effectively hack ones physiology, a social system can hack the whole stack at once (Physiology, Emotions, Ego, Social belonging). You can give bad actors the pains of withdrawal, peril, existential crisis and social suicide all in one. There are examples throughout very recent history of each layer being captured more perfectly. Even physiology more perfectly than any drug, think enclosure act, 14 hour workdays in industrial England.

Fine, ban lootboxes, but don't pretend it's to protect youths, it's to utilize "children". society is a massively harmful and evil tool, we must acknowledge that it's pure unadulterated evil that wouldn't blink at killing all youths. This is a fact, not an opinion, morals are just an API for humans that the system uses.

Re: Games with loot boxes to get minimum 16 age rating across Europe

#143

Post by johannes1234321 »

technothrasher wrote: post #125
hofrogs wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thrill rides? Probably not, I don't think there are many people having their life ruined by their addiction to amusement parks. Alcoholic drinks? History of bans like that suggests that it's not a good idea. However that doesn't mean that nothing can be done. Addictions to alcohol, drugs, smoking, gambling damage both the person suffering from them and the friends/loved ones around that person. It is most likely impo…

Hmm, so why do your perfectly reasonable thoughts on how to reduce alcohol abuse in light of not being able to simply ban it not apply to loot boxes as well? How is it different such that "completely banning", as you suggested, is a good idea there where it isn't for alcohol, drugs, smoking, and gambling (of which loot boxes are clearly a subcategory)?

Creating a black market for loot boxes is a lot harder than for liquor or setting up a poker game in the backroom.

Re: Games with loot boxes to get minimum 16 age rating across Europe

#144

Post by philistine »

shevy-java wrote: post #56
philistine wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Resale value protects The Pokémon Company. Your child spent all your money on Pokémon cards? Resell the cards. You've just realized your 15 years long obsession has broken your life? Resell the cards. Aggrieved parties can partly get restoration. That way there never is enough political momentum to legiferate them. Try to resell your Fortnite account and they close it.

Reselling never recovers all costs, for most people. I know that because I sold many of my old magic cards when I stopped playing magic (due to lack of time). I recovered about 20% of my expenses at most.

Which was enough to mollify you and make it impossible for you to think they should legiferate this mess.

Re: Games with loot boxes to get minimum 16 age rating across Europe

#145

Post by alex43578 »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #137
alex43578 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We absolutely could do without alcohol too and it's certainly far more harmful than lootboxes by any metric.

Yes because Prohibition worked so well before?

People do plenty of illegal things, but we still outlaw them to reduce the rate of people doing those things.

On the contrary, if we accept that people are mature enough to choose to drink, they certainly should be mature enough to spend $20 opening loot boxes. Fewer cases of cirrhosis, drunk driving accidents, and bar fights from loot boxes.

Re: Games with loot boxes to get minimum 16 age rating across Europe

#146

Post by lucketone »

abbadadda wrote: post #108

Great. Now do Roblox. In the game "Steal a Brainrot" the kinds of things kids can spend money on in the game that's supposedly safe for seven-year-olds is disgusting. £29.99 for a "secret lucky block" - and that's BEFORE price discrimination. Literally wiring the brains of kids as early as possible to have a tendency/preference towards "random variance rewards." I am really pleased to see any government doing somethi…

Technically: It’s not a casino if house wins 100% of the time.

Re: Games with loot boxes to get minimum 16 age rating across Europe

#147

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

alex43578 wrote: post #145
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because Prohibition worked so well before?

People do plenty of illegal things, but we still outlaw them to reduce the rate of people doing those things. On the contrary, if we accept that people are mature enough to choose to drink, they certainly should be mature enough to spend $20 opening loot boxes. Fewer cases of cirrhosis, drunk driving accidents, and bar fights from loot boxes.

No we outlaw them to disproportionately put minorities in jail…

I would rather not give the government more power.

Re: Games with loot boxes to get minimum 16 age rating across Europe

#150

Post by lo_zamoyski »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #147
alex43578 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People do plenty of illegal things, but we still outlaw them to reduce the rate of people doing those things. On the contrary, if we accept that people are mature enough to choose to drink, they certainly should be mature enough to spend $20 opening loot boxes. Fewer cases of cirrhosis, drunk driving accidents, and bar fights from loot boxes.

No we outlaw them to disproportionately put minorities in jail… I would rather not give the government more power.

Too much thumos, not enough nous in this conversation...

1. Alcohol may be consumed in moderation for enjoyment with no frustrating effect on our rational faculties. Even the bad effects on health are often overblown. They tend to be chronic and rooted in habitual consumption. Save for people with a predisposition for alcoholism, people generally do not experience compulsive desires for alcohol.

2. Gambling isn't comparable to alcohol. It is intrinsically irrational and inherently exploitative. It is also an intrinsically social and economic phenomenon. It requires the intentional exploitation of one party by another to work.

3. Loot boxes are intentionally designed to manipulate people psychologically for profit. It habituates bad habits by virtue of its very design.

4. While alcohol can be used that way, it is not designed for that purpose nor is its historical pedigree rooted in such malice. I would also claim that its addictive potential is lower all things considered.

So they aren't comparable. It's not enough to say "both A and B can have harmful effects, therefore both A and B are 'the same' for all intents and purposes".

Post reply on HN