31–40 of 319 posts
Agree that games that advertise loot-boxes should be restricted, given their relatively addictive nature to impressionable children. Children of younger ages shouldn't be exposed to this dopamine inducing idea similar to that of slot machines.
Possible there should be an option to self-define a spending limit (per month, day, week) that cannot be increased immediately.
How does a free market self-regulate this problem? What is the competitive advantage of not providing chance items?
I’m not a parent so of course have no right to make a suggestion, but could parents only buy devices without an internet connection? Games that cost X and X only?
I think they are popular with parents, too.
Myself and my son play Apex legends. Its an online multiplayer game thats free, but you can optionally pay to unlock cosmetic items like character outfits (skins) etc. He came into some cash recently courtesy of the tooth fairy and asked if we could buy a skin for his favorite character. I said ok. However after id purchased some in game coins we realised that we couldn't actually buy the skin he wanted, instead we h…
i've played apex legend for more than 50 hours, and had no idea you could actually spend money in that game. but i also think there's a generational divide: while i would gladly pay games for a leg up (better weapons, higher jumps, that sort of thing), i would never ever buy a "skin" for my character, or anything superficial for that matter. but I see kids getting completely hooked on this. and i don't really get it.…
I can kind of identify with it though. I remember going to a lot of bother to update the player DB in Sensible World of Soccer to reflect the most recent season. I also patched it and didn't pay (not even sure if there was a paid update). But it's not a stretch to imagine that if I didn't understand how to do it myself and someone offered me a pound for the floppy disk I may have bought it!
How does a free market self-regulate this problem? What is the competitive advantage of not providing chance items?
It doesn't. As a baseline, games with gambling elements will be more profitable than games without, ceteris paribus. You have two competing effects here: games with gambling are better able to monetize their players, but might find it harder to attract these players in the first place if the gambling element is known and understood by the players beforehand. Unfortunately, that "if" is trivially eliminated with marke…
In RuneScape at the time, there was another PvP zone where you could fight another player and bet gold on whether you would win. Now having "expendable gold" and false confidence, I dropped some big money on this PvP zone, and over the course of a day, I lost it all. I was devastated. I've never lost a ton of money in real life, but this left a really sick feeling in my stomach even in the digital world.
Reflecting on this experience, I feel it has actually benefited me. I've experienced the pain and risk that gambling can bring, and have never felt a need to do this with my actual money. To me, games can be a sandbox to learn life lessons without major consequences.
Myself and my son play Apex legends. Its an online multiplayer game thats free, but you can optionally pay to unlock cosmetic items like character outfits (skins) etc. He came into some cash recently courtesy of the tooth fairy and asked if we could buy a skin for his favorite character. I said ok. However after id purchased some in game coins we realised that we couldn't actually buy the skin he wanted, instead we h…
i've played apex legend for more than 50 hours, and had no idea you could actually spend money in that game. but i also think there's a generational divide: while i would gladly pay games for a leg up (better weapons, higher jumps, that sort of thing), i would never ever buy a "skin" for my character, or anything superficial for that matter. but I see kids getting completely hooked on this. and i don't really get it.…
for the generation that admits to buying these things without qualm, think about the social benefits as much as having the right console/toy/action figure had
Myself and my son play Apex legends. Its an online multiplayer game thats free, but you can optionally pay to unlock cosmetic items like character outfits (skins) etc. He came into some cash recently courtesy of the tooth fairy and asked if we could buy a skin for his favorite character. I said ok. However after id purchased some in game coins we realised that we couldn't actually buy the skin he wanted, instead we h…
Also perhaps better than spending the money on sweets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The free market doesn't regulate flaws in human psychology. Gambling is designed to hit all these flaws to trick and manipulate you out of all your money. Children are especially vulnerable to this. The correct solution is for governments to ban companies shoving gambling at kids.
I think education would be more effective than a ban. Teach children to recognize gambling at early stage. Show them with examples how the house/gaming studio wins by exploiting human nature. If you just protect children from exposure to gambling you will end up with vulnerable adults and adults don't have a guardian who can stop the bleeding even if the cost is a lot of kicking and screaming.
The games industry also goes to great lengths to obfusticate and hide the mechanics - it is truly predatory.
I agree that regulation is no panacea, but in this instance, combined with additional approaches such as education I belive it to be a suitable approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s exactly the same reason people pay for fashion. The clothes don’t provide practical benefit, yet people still pay 100x more for branding. And you can’t hack this because these are multiplayer games.
yes, but fashion in games? paying for worthless pixels? i do get what you're saying thou...
Their online persona is part of their identity. For some people, buying an expensive in game item makes them feel rich/successful/whatever, and some people will complement/judge them on their taste/expenditure etc.
It’s no different to buying a Rolex, a fast car or Louis vuitton hand bag. All of them are functionally the same but convey something about the owner
How does a free market self-regulate this problem? What is the competitive advantage of not providing chance items?
I’m not a parent so of course have no right to make a suggestion, but could parents only buy devices without an internet connection? Games that cost X and X only?
Children are not the only target - far from, but the argument is easier to make. Video Game industry suffers massively, lacking good content as loot boxes dominate most popular titles - the freemium model. Kids would like to play what their friends play and often online - the latter statement is not limited to kids at all.
Also a parent is extremely unlikely to limit phone usable (prime target) to no inet connection. It's doable of course but it's futile and the kids feel excluded.