Video game "loot boxes" may become federally illegal??......

[rstofer]

Somebody, usually an adult, owns the credit card used to pay for this nonsense.  One call to the 800 number on the back of the card can have it cancelled.  A replacement can usually be shipped 'overnight'.

I find the practice reprehensible - Brumby got it right - and if people think legislation is the answer, go for it.

We see something similar with enabled test equipment options that disappear after some trial time period.  Then you can use your credit card to get them back (unless the device can be 'unlocked').  This is usually happening to an adult that has a job and owns the credit card.

[Mr. Scram]

Lawmakers do not have a problem with gambling as long as they get a cut.  Witness the shenanigans with various state lotteries in the US.

They tend to do when children are involved. I really have trouble imagining what kind of lowlife scum you have to be to consciously design gambling into a product for children and young adults. "Your own responsibility" also becomes hazy when addiction is involved.

[Mr. Scram]

Again, Correct.  I actually have a feeling kids and loot boxes have a lot more in common than people think.  Your genetics and the chemistry in your brain make it essentially biologically compelling to roll the kids dice and you have zero guarantees how your kids roll will turn out.  You may be hoping for an "epic", but that's far from certain and there are no re-rolls.  Maybe if more people had a clearer understanding of the small print that comes along with kids they would make different decisions up front about if that's their best investment.
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child


And I feel like you are making some of my points with the comparisons to casino gambling and pervasive advertising and other "adult" influences.  You either learn how to navigate the difficult parts of the world early or you learn it later, and the later you learn these things the more serious and costly the lessons become.  When there is too much of an artificial shelter from all perceived dangers early on (parental or legislative), then you get people who think "adulting" is something that you start learning how to do after you turn 25.

For some intents and purposes "adulting" does start at 25 as the brain develops up to that age. We see what look like functioning adults but not all parts are. It's just not as visible. Impulse control is one of the things to develop last and guess what gambling targets? It's not as if we don't protect children from drugs or other activities they're likely to hurt themselves with.

[james_s]

For some intents and purposes "adulting" does start at 25 as the brain develops up to that age. We see what look like functioning adults but not all parts are. It's just not as visible. Impulse control is one of the things to develop last and guess what gambling targets? It's not as if we don't protect children from drugs or other activities they're likely to hurt themselves with.

For some "adulting" never starts. My mother in law is in her 60s and is as impulsive as any teenager. She pisses away money like it grows on trees, at one point she inherited more than I've earned throughout my entire career and within a couple of years she was out of money again. On the other hand some young people are surprisingly responsible.

Experience has taught me that you can't save everyone from themselves and you can't legislate morality or common sense.

[Mr. Scram]

For some "adulting" never starts. My mother in law is in her 60s and is as impulsive as any teenager. She pisses away money like it grows on trees, at one point she inherited more than I've earned throughout my entire career and within a couple of years she was out of money again. On the other hand some young people are surprisingly responsible.

Experience has taught me that you can't save everyone from themselves and you can't legislate morality or common sense.

Sure. That doesn't detract from the fact that children and developing young adults are ill equipped to deal with gambling mechanisms. Adults get themselves in trouble with gambling regularly and they stand a much better chance. It's not a matter of "can't teach some", it's keeping them from a carefully crafted trap they aren't supposed to deal well with. It's like spiking the orange juice at an AA meeting and making a business model out of it, except even less fair.

[julianhigginson]

At the end of the day, loot boxes in games aren't even that much of a biggie, compared to the overall drive to push addictive behaviour generating technology into pretty much everything it can be... there's a whole range of things being turned addictive for the sake of a bit of extra human engagement, and it's really not a good thing for human health.

At least the addition what is basically slot machines that chew up real money inside regular video games that kids play is an obvious "WTF" moment for some.

Here's something far worse - it's a side-note in this article, but options trading is now "gamified" and being pushed to unsophisticated traders.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2020/06/17/20-year-old-robinhood-customer-dies-by-suicide-after-seeing-a-730000-negative-balance/#61d9eac81638

Kearns may not have realized that his negative cash balance displaying on his Robinhood home screen was only temporary and would be corrected once the underlying stock was credited to his account. Indeed it’s not uncommon for cash and buying power to display negative after the first half of options are processed but before the second options are exercised—even if the portfolio remains positive.

“Tragically, I don’t even think he made that big of a mistake. This is an interface issue, they have slick interfaces. Confetti popping everywhere,” says Brewster referring to the shower of colorful confetti Robinhood routinely deploys after customers make trades. “They try to gamify trading and couch it as investment.”

[james_s]

I don't *like* those stupid games, or social media for that matter, both are engineered to be addictive, the latter is arguably much more damaging to society. I'm just skeptical whenever it comes to creating yet more laws, there are so many laws already that nobody could ever be expected to know all of them.

[flowib]

They tend to do when children are involved. I really have trouble imagining what kind of lowlife scum you have to be to consciously design gambling into a product for children and young adults. "Your own responsibility" also becomes hazy when addiction is involved.
[/quote]

From my own experience, being prone to addiction and having poor impulse controls i must have sunk most of the money i had (and that of my parents at occasions)in childhood into loot boxes. Ive played World of warcraft (and TBH blizzard is a saint compared to some others) there are some real unscrupulous companies out there that will happily bleed you dry in an attempt to get some item so you can atleast remain viable in competitive gaming.

Ive read other comments about parental responsibility i take offense to that. My entire family is on the spectrum parents and siblings included and i think my mother was glad i was too preoccupied with online gaming to cause her much trouble, she had a rough time with all three of us and there was a period when all i did was play world of warcraft, it had gotten so bad all i did was play WOW go to some special school only to be tossed out of class every day because i couldn't or wouldn't behave. In the end my parents decided to limit my available play time in WOW. But not before a screaming freak out on my part.

And my experience is not a one off, i know at least a dozen people from my time in special education that had similar experiences, as a matter of fact the majority of those who attended that school had problems regulating their online gaming play time. And most went through one or more depressive episodes later in life.

Im no neurologist, however i firmly believe that all this addictive gaming in life did cause physical changes in my neural pathways similar to those encountered in alcoholics or substance abusers. At least this is what i have been told by a number of psychologists who i have debated and or consulted on the topic. In short what i've gathered from them and from reading up on the neural pathways involved : An addiction is an addiction and once you have been addicted to something its very easy to roll into another addiction. Gaming could very well be the new gateway drug.

Those online gaming companies are in my eyes at least just as guilty and cause just as much mischief as some of the pharmaceutical companies that pushed opioids on the American public causing the rural opioid epidemic in the States. To some that are genetically or are in certain socio-economic situations it can be devastating and cause long term damage that can't be fixed.

I'm no fan of government overreach in general, however article 22 of our constitution delegates the improvement of public health to the government, and if loot boxes are in anyway dangerous to mental health of young people they should ban them outright.

But the discussion should be broader , i am fundamentally convinced that most social media is at least as toxic to the dopamine levels of their users, and in general has caused some nasty societal changes that we have yet to experience the full ramifications of. Facebook and the rest of those W****ERS are no hair better then the guy slinging dope.

I'm afraid that without a ban by the EU and the US congress the Dutch ban becomes hard if not impossible to enforce and therefore i wholeheartedly support anyone that is willing to take on these companies as they pray on some of the weakest to create shareholder value the US should take a sledgehammer to microtransactions in general.

[asmi]

At the end of the day, loot boxes in games aren't even that much of a biggie, compared to the overall drive to push addictive behaviour generating technology into pretty much everything it can be...

Then we need to make EE illegal then as I'm totally addicted to it and over years spent absurd amount of money specifically so that I can spend even more money on it in the future (like better eCAD tools that allows me to design higher performance stuff which is obviously more expensive to make).

there's a whole range of things being turned addictive for the sake of a bit of extra human engagement, and it's really not a good thing for human health.

Living is not good for human health as it invariably leads to death. Let's ban that too?

State has no business in personal affairs. I will die protecting my freedom to do stupid shit.

[rrinker]

 Multiple thoughts

"Stupid and irresponsible" to say that parents should be responsible for their children? What planet are you from?

Ban alcohol? We tried that in the US once. It was an unmitigated disaster.

Sugary drinks and food? They have applied an extra tax to sugary drinks in Philadelphia. The only people paying the tax are the poor it was supposed to help, because they still want soda and do not have an easy way to go outside the city limits to avoid the tax, and people who are wealthy enough to not give a darn. People in the middle just drive short distances to escape the city limits and buy their soda there.

The whole idea of loot boxes and in-game purchases I think is just stupid - but a law against it? If it's so bad, stop buying, stop playing, the game developers will have to change their ways. None of this was needed when you ran your own servers for games, now it's justified as supporting the on-going operation of banks of hosted servers to support the players. Multi-player games were more fun when you could actually mod them on your own server.

To clarify - in game purchases that are more or less REQUIRED to advance, not the shortcut stuff. There are plenty of games where you can (eventually) reach the highest tier and not spend any real money - it just takes a LOT of play time, slogging through mid tier levels over and over to accumulate enough of the in-game currency to 'buy' advanced gear. If they want to put a shortcut in there for those that WANT to, go right ahead. But don't require it. The random nature of real money loot boxes though, is just s stupid idea - as much lazy developers as it is greed from the game publisher. But there is no need for a law, not at all.

[Bud]

Was the congressional hearings of 1993-1994 on violance in video games and subsequent creation of the content rating system stupid? Was it not needed?

[james_s]

Was the congressional hearings of 1993-1994 on violance in video games and subsequent creation of the content rating system stupid? Was it not needed?

I would call it stupid and not needed. Kids could and can get hold of any game they want, and on top of that there is no evidence to show that playing violent games leads to violence in real life. I certainly played a lot of Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake and other extremely violent games when I was a kid and I'm not a violent person. There's a clear line between pretend and real life.

[HobGoblyn]

Was the congressional hearings of 1993-1994 on violance in video games and subsequent creation of the content rating system stupid? Was it not needed?

I would call it stupid and not needed. Kids could and can get hold of any game they want, and on top of that there is no evidence to show that playing violent games leads to violence in real life. I certainly played a lot of Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake and other extremely violent games when I was a kid and I'm not a violent person. There's a clear line between pretend and real life.

I 99.9% agree

I happily let my kids play 18 rated games because like you, they were bought up to know right and wrong, reality and fantasy.

The trouble comes for all those kids whose parents don't give a dam about them and sadly there are a large number.  (but as you say, they will get hold of the games regardless)

If a kid is going to be violent, it doesn't matter whether they see violent games or not.

Where I have seen problems, is with kids with zero parental upbringing who can't differentiate between something they see on TV and reality.   I used to help run a youth club.  I stopped (just in time) a 14 year old smacking another kid over the head with a chair as he had seen it on wrestling the night before.

The thing is, those kids will sadly always exist.  Did he really believe it wouldn't harm the other kid or did he realise it would and still want to do it, who knows.

I know hundreds of people who have played violent games, none of them are violent, usually the sort of person wanting censorship has heard something from the fat bloke down the pub, has never seen or heard the things they want banned.  I think it should be up to parents what their kids can watch, ratings should be a guideline.

Me, in reality I'm a kind, very honest member of society, if I ever find a wallet etc, I would get it back to the owner or hand it on to the police without hesitation.  But when I play MMOs, I can be a right evil git, love playing a thief etc. 

As for loot boxes,   I understand why companies like them, I understand why others want them banned. It could be argued that they are introducing kids to gambling.  And of course the sort of person the gaming company wants, is the 2 - 5% (made up figures) who are so addicted, they spend £100s each month.  From a personal point of view, as soon as loot boxes are introduced,  the games go downhill fast.  It is sort of like the people running it have given up on spending money on "good" new content, instead spending all their time developing silly things to get the addicts to think they want, hence sell tons of loot boxes.

 

[Bud]

Was the congressional hearings of 1993-1994 on violance in video games and subsequent creation of the content rating system stupid? Was it not needed?

I would call it stupid and not needed. Kids could and can get hold of any game they want, and on top of that there is no evidence to show that playing violent games leads to violence in real life. I certainly played a lot of Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake and other extremely violent games when I was a kid and I'm not a violent person. There's a clear line between pretend and real life.

Then you call stupid  video game producers themselves, since Sega already had their own content rating system prior to the hearing, it was just not good enough but the need was clearly there.

[james_s]

Then you call stupid  video game producers themselves, since Sega already had their own content rating system prior to the hearing, it was just not good enough but the need was clearly there.

So what? Some video game producers are stupid. I don't have any issue with them creating their own content rating system if they want to do so. It's not gonna stop kids from getting their hands on the stuff if they want it but may provide some guidance to parents. When I was a kid I could get any game I wanted from one of my friends and it's much easier today, I don't think there was a content rating system yet but it didn't matter.

[edy]

I'm not sure the government has to be involved in this. Underage users should be supervised or have parental controls and spending limits. Adults can already piss away their money on many things in life, legally. So why try to control yet another thing?

My kids all have devices and we monitor them. Every device is password protected and no automatic billing or purchases can ever happen. If they are permitted to "buy" credits at all, it is provided from allowance or some understanding of limits and responsibilities as they won't get more soon. This teaches real life management of money and choices they will need to make in the future.

If someone wants to destroy their life they can in so many other ways and government oversight can't really stop it. Adults spend on many addictions to the point that it is destructive to themselves and relationships. These games should be used as a lesson for parental involvement and not expect government to solve every problem that exists.

[Halcyon]

I honestly don't know why laws like that need to exist. How far do we go to "protect" the dumb or vulnerable?

Kids don't have credit cards so their parents must be enabling their purchases. If they want to pour their money into something useless, that's on them. It's no different to dumping money into poker machines, alcohol, cigarettes or any other useless crap people don't need.

[AlexanderOgden]

These games become immersive and you could claim they are addictive. By offering purchase of stuff - using real money - useful in a player's progress through the game, you are using their addiction to extract money. I don't advise you to play on it. Play games like League of Legends. Guys, if you have some problems with rank in LOL, I only can advise a boosting service for this game and the best one in the marketplace is boosteria prices because they are not so high and they offer a good and fast service. I used them and I am very pleased with them because I reached my wanted rank.   

[HobGoblyn]

Just seen this on bbc news

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53253195

[MrMobodies]

Buying virtual items and it reminds of this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9928381/Boy-runs-up-1000-bill-buying-virtual-doughnuts-on-iPad.html

Boy runs-up £1,000 bill buying virtual doughnuts on iPad
An eight-year-old boy has run up a bill of almost £1,000 buying virtual doughnuts in an iPad game.
6:34PM GMT 13 Mar 2013

Theo Rowland-Fry, from Bristol, spent £980 playing Tapped Out, an iPad game based on The Simpsons television series, on the family iPad.

Theo's dad, Nick, said he and his wife, Lisa, only realised there was a problem when they discovered their bank account was empty.

Mr Rowland-Fry told the Daily Mail: "There were more than 100 purchases on iTunes for between £1.50 and £75, from the middle of January and the beginning of this month. "We received no emails alerting us to what was happening."
He added: "Theo is only just eight and has no real concept of the monetary value attached."

The family have since had the money refunded by Apple, which says it considers such incidents on a case-by-case basis.

The case is one of several that have been highlighted recently. Earlier this month it was reported that a five-year-old boy had bought £1,700 worth of virtual goods in just 10 minutes.

Danny Kitchen asked for the passcode for the device so that he could download a game, Zombie v Ninja, from the Apple store. But after downloading the free app Danny found his way into the game's online store and innocently ordered dozens of costly add-ons - totalling £1,710.43.

Apple recently agreed to settle a US lawsuit after five sets of parents said their children had spent money on virtual goods.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9901637/Five-year-old-runs-up-1700-iPad-bill-in-ten-minutes.html

Except it appears that they didn't know they were gambling.

I would want to own it outright without paying for virtual things.

For example I'd think I'd rather do buy the whole gambling machine, disable the coins slot and that's the gambling element gone with money.

When I play games I woudn't want to link it to my wallet thank you very much.

[SilverSolder]

Buying virtual items and it reminds of this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9928381/Boy-runs-up-1000-bill-buying-virtual-doughnuts-on-iPad.html

Boy runs-up £1,000 bill buying virtual doughnuts on iPad
An eight-year-old boy has run up a bill of almost £1,000 buying virtual doughnuts in an iPad game.
6:34PM GMT 13 Mar 2013

Theo Rowland-Fry, from Bristol, spent £980 playing Tapped Out, an iPad game based on The Simpsons television series, on the family iPad.

Theo's dad, Nick, said he and his wife, Lisa, only realised there was a problem when they discovered their bank account was empty.

Mr Rowland-Fry told the Daily Mail: "There were more than 100 purchases on iTunes for between £1.50 and £75, from the middle of January and the beginning of this month. "We received no emails alerting us to what was happening."
He added: "Theo is only just eight and has no real concept of the monetary value attached."

The family have since had the money refunded by Apple, which says it considers such incidents on a case-by-case basis.

The case is one of several that have been highlighted recently. Earlier this month it was reported that a five-year-old boy had bought £1,700 worth of virtual goods in just 10 minutes.

Danny Kitchen asked for the passcode for the device so that he could download a game, Zombie v Ninja, from the Apple store. But after downloading the free app Danny found his way into the game's online store and innocently ordered dozens of costly add-ons - totalling £1,710.43.

Apple recently agreed to settle a US lawsuit after five sets of parents said their children had spent money on virtual goods.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9901637/Five-year-old-runs-up-1700-iPad-bill-in-ten-minutes.html

Except it appears that they didn't know they were gambling.

I would want to own it outright without paying for virtual things.

For example I'd think I'd rather do buy the whole gambling machine, disable the coins slot and that's the gambling element gone with money.

When I play games I woudn't want to link it to my wallet thank you very much.

People are trusting...   they expect "serious" companies like Apple to not allow their five year old to empty Grandma's pension account.

[cdev]

Why not have people who are obsessed with games be able to earn virtual goods by doing volunteer work in their communities for free?

But I think it makes sense to ban the use of real money, because people are stupid, and these games are often played by kids.

[MrMobodies]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-48701962

EA games: Loot boxes aren't gambling, they're just like a Kinder Egg
20 June 2019

A vice president of EA games has defended the company's use of loot boxes, saying they're just the same as Kinder Eggs. Kerry Hopkins was speaking in front of UK MPs this week about video game addiction. In 2018, computer scientists from York found a strong link between loot boxes and gambling. But Kerry told MPs that EA believed the boxes are "quite ethical and fun.

If you're not a gamer, loot boxes are virtual crates that contain goodies like weapons, costumes and other perks.

So are many other free/ouright purchased games for gamers and non/occasional gamers.

"We do think the way that we have implemented these kinds of mechanics - and Fifa of course is our big one, our Fifa Ultimate Team and our packs - is actually quite ethical and quite fun, quite enjoyable to people," Kerry said.

Loot boxes are much more than throwaway toys'
But Ryan Brown, a games journalist and PR believes people who play games with loot boxes would disagree with EA.

Ethics? Where the throwaway toys can be derived to the money that is thrown away.

So for the throw away toys, you have to pay for them and when the toys are thrown away the money is also thrown away but that never belong to you in the first place but to them. I am I right to think it kinds of borders over subscription based services where you have some rights to certain thingds over a given time?

I question for those who are gambling: Are you playing it or is it playing you?

[Mr. Scram]

I don't *like* those stupid games, or social media for that matter, both are engineered to be addictive, the latter is arguably much more damaging to society. I'm just skeptical whenever it comes to creating yet more laws, there are so many laws already that nobody could ever be expected to know all of them.

I'm all for simplifying the law but I don't think the protection of a very vulnerable group against carefully constructed exploitation is the place to start.

[james_s]

I'm all for simplifying the law but I don't think the protection of a very vulnerable group against carefully constructed exploitation is the place to start.

Where is the place to start? For any proposed law out there I can assure you there is a group of people who feel passionately that questioning their proposed law is not the place to start.