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

91–100 of 104 posts

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

#91

Post by Mithaldu »

mmirate wrote: post #89
chillwaves wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you support is immoral. IF you want to live in a society where people prey on each other in every way possible, do not be surprised to eat a bullet. This shit is destabilizing because you advocate taking food off the tables of the poor. Impressive karma btw.

I mean, whoever is dumb enough to gamble, deserves to lose everything. And if they want to then shoot people, I'm sure the police will be more than obligated to do their jobs.

Do the minor, elderly, disabled or other types of dependenents deserve to lose everything too because the person charged with their care loses everything?

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

#92

Post by Mithaldu »

chimeracoder wrote: post #38

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.…

Look at Warframe. Their model is much better than anything Blizzard or any of the bigwigs offers.

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

#93

Post by shakna »

stonemetal wrote: post #83
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…

If you can't sell it, and it can't be paid for directly how can it be worth "between $0.1x and $10x" Some items might be more desirable but you can't pay more or less for them. That is rather different than a raffle where the prize is usually something easy to put a price on.

We also raffle off dates with celebrities, and other things where value isn't clear-cut. It still usually falls under the same rules.

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

#94

Post by shakna »

technion wrote: post #84
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…

Raffle regulation in Australia is commonly treated as a joke though. Everyone just calls them "guessing competitions", where you buy a raffle to "guess the name of the three letter easter chocolate that starts with e and ends in g". Even schools - noting you can't promote gambling to children - get away with that regularly. With those loopholes, you could probably get away with a lot.

Guessing games still fall under regs in Australia [0].

Schools can run them fine, as most schools fall under "charitable organisation", so they just need written consent from the board, and a prize less than the state's maximum unlicensed game competition amount. ($5000 in Victoria, $2000 in Queensland).

[0 PDF] https://publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/fc2f9cdd-8799-45bf-9...

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

#95

Post by mmirate »

Mithaldu wrote: post #91
mmirate wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, whoever is dumb enough to gamble, deserves to lose everything. And if they want to then shoot people, I'm sure the police will be more than obligated to do their jobs.

Do the minor, elderly, disabled or other types of dependenents deserve to lose everything too because the person charged with their care loses everything?

Whoever is dumb enough to not be alarmed that their caregiver gambles, also deserves to lose everything.

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

#96

Post by Mithaldu »

mmirate wrote: post #95
Mithaldu wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do the minor, elderly, disabled or other types of dependenents deserve to lose everything too because the person charged with their care loses everything?

Whoever is dumb enough to not be alarmed that their caregiver gambles, also deserves to lose everything.

What you're missing is that most of the people on the list i just gave couldn't do anything about it even if they were aware of it. That's what the term dependent strongly implies.

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

#97

Post by jdietrich »

oldcynic wrote: post #88
jdietrich wrote: post #40

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…

It was far better in the UK before the massive deregulation of gambling. It has gone much too far. Our poorest areas have high streets with 4 or 5 betting shops in spitting distance of each other. Addiction and problem gambling has snowballed out of hand. The self exclusion scheme is widely abused by bookmakers. The levy on betting shops pays lip service to the damage done. Fixed odds betting machines are a licence t…

The singular problem is FOBTs. Pretty much everyone in the industry hates them, except of course for the big four bookmakers who profit from them. They're the reason for the absurd over-concentration of betting shops in certain areas, they're the reason for the failure of self-exclusion, they're killing the racing industry and they're a gift to petty money-launderers. As a gambler, I can't stand them - local betting shops used to be rather convivial places, but FOBTs have completely poisoned the atmosphere.

It's looking near-certain that the maximum stake for FOBTs will be reduced to £2, which is a reasonable starting point. The big four bookies are extremely nervous about the upcoming triennial review of gambling regulation, which is good news for everyone else.

https://sbcnews.co.uk/retail/2018/01/22/dcms-deliver-uk-book...

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

#99

Post by dang »

mmirate wrote: post #95
Mithaldu wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do the minor, elderly, disabled or other types of dependenents deserve to lose everything too because the person charged with their care loses everything?

Whoever is dumb enough to not be alarmed that their caregiver gambles, also deserves to lose everything.

You're past flamebait and into trolling. Please don't post like this here; it destroys the site.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

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

#100

Post by mmirate »

dang wrote: post #99
mmirate wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoever is dumb enough to not be alarmed that their caregiver gambles, also deserves to lose everything.

You're past flamebait and into trolling. Please don't post like this here; it destroys the site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

I don't understand. I mean every word I've said in this thread.
Post reply on HN