Do they let 16 year olds gamble in casinos in Europe? Odd to ban it for kids but only some kids.
What are "kids"? Age of majority is all over the place, there's no hard and fast rule for when adolescents become adults, every society on the planet has a different take on it. For example, you can get married at 16 in the UK, but can't drive until 17 (it's not a priority as we didn't build so many car-dependent hellscapes), and you can buy alcohol at 18 or be given it with a meal by your parents at younger ages, be…
Ugh, Panini sticker albums and Topps trading cards were my loot boxes as a kid. Far too much money trying to get those last couple you need. Fiends.
I think online/digital gambling is worse because it follows you everywhere. I don’t like any form of gambling, but at least with casinos there’s some escape in not physically being there. It’s also harder to enforce age requirements online.
They all have apps these days, and just like a local bookmaker might "accidentally" remove your name from their legally required self-ban list it's very common that a "bug" in your phone app means you can keep gambling after saying you want to stop. "Mistakes" in the controlling party's favour are extremely common in such industries. Fluke 100-1 sport betting win? Oops we forget to fill out that mandatory anti-fraud…
Google keeps accidentally forgetting that I don’t want their fucking browser.
"Lootboxes", "cases", "packs" and other chance-based systems that involve spending real money or an in-game currency that could be obtained by spending real money should be banned completely, all of those systems exploit brain vulnerabilities for profit. Also, prediction markets, sports betting, online casinos, shitcoin exchanges.
It's interesting that your list skews entirely digital, and that more physical games of chance like lotteries and blackjack are not on the list. Do you see them as fundamentally different?
Well I was thinking in the context of games, so the list is some of the stuff that you can waste unlimited amounts of real money on to get a chance for a shiny digital item. I do think that physical gambling is bad too, though it's not as easily accessible, you don't carry a (physical) roulette table in your pocket.
It's interesting that your list skews entirely digital, and that more physical games of chance like lotteries and blackjack are not on the list. Do you see them as fundamentally different?
Card packs are not digital.
When I was writing my comment I mentioned packs as in digital loot boxes designed to feel like physical card packs.
It's interesting that your list skews entirely digital, and that more physical games of chance like lotteries and blackjack are not on the list. Do you see them as fundamentally different?
I think it's interesting that you're refusing to engage with the topic at hand and trying to distract with whataboutism. You may be shocked and horrified to learn that two things can be bad at the same time, even if we only talk about one. GP's comments trend digital because we're talking about digital games. GP is on-topic, you are trying to derail and delegetimize the conversation.
I think it's very interesting many people treat physical games of chance as different than purely digital ones, and wanted to explore this topic. To me, that's a more interesting topic of conversation than calling for legislation, or arguing about the merits of such legislation. Especially when it's about legislation in a jurisdiction I do not fall under.
This forum is a branching conversation pattern. I'm not derailing anything because this isn't a linear conversation. If you want to discuss something else that the parent comment said then make a post against that conversation.
It's interesting that your list skews entirely digital, and that more physical games of chance like lotteries and blackjack are not on the list. Do you see them as fundamentally different?
Well I was thinking in the context of games, so the list is some of the stuff that you can waste unlimited amounts of real money on to get a chance for a shiny digital item. I do think that physical gambling is bad too, though it's not as easily accessible, you don't carry a (physical) roulette table in your pocket.
I agree that accessibility is a big aspect that makes these digital games of chance different than the physical counterparts.
"Lootboxes", "cases", "packs" and other chance-based systems that involve spending real money or an in-game currency that could be obtained by spending real money should be banned completely, all of those systems exploit brain vulnerabilities for profit. Also, prediction markets, sports betting, online casinos, shitcoin exchanges.
It's interesting that your list skews entirely digital, and that more physical games of chance like lotteries and blackjack are not on the list. Do you see them as fundamentally different?
Many locales ban physical gambling as well. It’s a defensible policy.
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.
I would argue the opposite. Black market liquor (bootlegging) requires a full black market distillery industry and smuggling/distribution network. It's every bit as difficult as operating in the narcotics world, with violence and cartels everywhere.
Black market loot boxes, on the other hand, seem to me to be similar to software and media piracy and illegal streaming: easy to operate, extremely difficult to prevent.
I think it's interesting that you're refusing to engage with the topic at hand and trying to distract with whataboutism. You may be shocked and horrified to learn that two things can be bad at the same time, even if we only talk about one. GP's comments trend digital because we're talking about digital games. GP is on-topic, you are trying to derail and delegetimize the conversation.
I think it's very interesting many people treat physical games of chance as different than purely digital ones, and wanted to explore this topic. To me, that's a more interesting topic of conversation than calling for legislation, or arguing about the merits of such legislation. Especially when it's about legislation in a jurisdiction I do not fall under. This forum is a branching conversation pattern. I'm not derail…
Physical gambling is confined to a physical location (like a casino or a sports betting bar), so people have to go there to be harmed. It's bad, but it requires someone to spend time getting there (and if the victim has a family/friends they might ask where they're headed/intervene in some way) and there is a limit to the amount of people who can be there at once. With digital gambling, anyone can spend any amount of money, anywhere, anytime, with no oversight (however little it might be in a physical location). The harm is magnified immensely.
Creating a black market for loot boxes is a lot harder than for liquor or setting up a poker game in the backroom.
I would argue the opposite. Black market liquor (bootlegging) requires a full black market distillery industry and smuggling/distribution network. It's every bit as difficult as operating in the narcotics world, with violence and cartels everywhere. Black market loot boxes, on the other hand, seem to me to be similar to software and media piracy and illegal streaming: easy to operate, extremely difficult to prevent.
Isn't the perceived value from "rare items" from those loot boxes based on the popularity of the game/IP that the loot box system is attached to?