Hawaii Looks to Ban Loot Box Games

travisty said:
I'd love it if the Electronic Software Rating Board had to mark all games with loot box micro transactions as AO (Adult Only). That'd kill these off nice and quick.
Click to expand...
Why is it not like that already?
 
Gigus Fire said:
I'm a bit torn on this.
At 18, you're an adult and can get credit cards in your own name. Why does it have to be 21? That's the age to drink. I guess it's also the age to legally gamble, but if someone can get a credit car and sign contracts at 18, they should be able to spend their credit/money however they want to. If loot boxes were classified as gambling, then they would be outlawed in many areas that don't permit online gambling. Not really a bad thing, but I don't think it's at that level.
Click to expand...
It is at that level. EA isn't doing this to give player choice to the odd gamer that will pick up a skin or two. They are doing it for the kids that will max their parents credit card trying to get a good team in Fifa.
They make it very clear, they are going after the 'whales', players the will drop thousands on loot boxes.
 
Distriived said:
Honestly how is this really any different than gambling your money awayaat Chuck E cheese or that damn machine that eats my money.
Click to expand...
They don't higher psychologist to be as exploitative as possible.
In chuck E cheese you pay to play a game.
If my kids is in Chucky E Cheese it is because I took them and gave them a limited number of tokens to use.
With games I bought them the game, but have no control over the in-game marketing.
Also, at Chucky E Cheese you see people wining tickets, not random prizes.
A set number of tickets can be exchanged for a specific prize every time.
With EA you buy the game, the season pass, DLC and after that they have predatory mechanisms to promote DLC.
Did you level up? go next to the DLC store to get your perks. And look at the guy beside you opening his premium loot crate, the cards appear in the sky for everyone to see
call-of-duty-wwii-loot-620x320.jpg
 
While I'm in general, not a fan of loot boxes. I just hate pay2win. That being said, I don't see how this withstands a legal challenge.
 
they can't ban pay to win, but they can ban the RNG gambling mechanics they typically employ.
This won't effect things like diamonds to reduce cool down or building times in mobile games.
It will remove card packs and loot boxes.
 
bugleyman said:
This legislation seems debatable to me, but is in NO WAY a ban.

Incredibly misleading headline on this article. (n)
Click to expand...
An AO rating is an effective ban on its sale in the US, as most retailers will not stock AO-rated video games. It's like refusing a video game classification in other parts of the world.
 
PhotoBobBarker said:
My only problem with this is the same as some others... Either you are an adult at 18 and the maximum restriction age allowed to be set by any government is 18, or it's 21 and that becomes the age for voting and everything else... Oh, and that age also would be required to be the age to start filing taxes as well. I really have yet to figure out how someone hasn't managed to fight (and win) minors paying taxes on a constitutional basis yet.
Click to expand...
They'd need to be regulated like a casino. AFAIK, the companies don't publish the odds and they can change the odds at will. Probably have to go back to the days when the mob ran Vegas to find a system like that.
 
Rahh said:
Are they going to ban baseball card packs, comic card packs, magic card packs, and Pokemon card packs as well? Same premise. Also, with games like Overwatch you get loot boxes for free upon leveling and they only include cosmetics. If someone wants to buy more loot boxes on their own accord then so be it.
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY! As long as they're over the age of 18.
 
M76 said:
Why is it not like that already?
Click to expand...

ESRB is owned by the ESA, whose members include: Capcom, Electronic Arts, Konami, Microsoft, Bandai Namco Entertainment, Nintendo, Sony Interactive Entertainment, Square Enix, Take-Two Interactive, Ubisoft and Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment.


This will never happen.
 
DrFino said:
ESRB is owned by the ESA, whose members include: Capcom, Electronic Arts, Konami, Microsoft, Bandai Namco Entertainment, Nintendo, Sony Interactive Entertainment, Square Enix, Take-Two Interactive, Ubisoft and Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment.


This will never happen.
Click to expand...
It'll happen if there's pressure to do it. AFAIK, the only reason ESA exists is because people started complaining about violence and gore in games. They'd much rather self-regulate than have the government do it for them...and unlike with gore/violence, which is likely protected by the first amendment, loot boxes/gambling is not.
 
Yeaa more nanny nanny state B.S.

BTW what Hawaii is proposing is simply put ... Fascism.
 
katanaD said:
LOL WUT ?? if your kids are maxing out your credit cards, you have BIGGER issues then some game.
Click to expand...
It hasn't happened to me, but I've heard that it was an issue for some. You link your CC to your xbox account to buy a game and the details are saved.
After that your kid can order packs, especially if they are younger and don't really understand. I don't know if this has been fixed or if a password is needed by default.
 
This is where I express mass diappointment in both consumers and the health of competition in the marketplace.
 
tangoseal said:
Yeaa more nanny nanny state B.S.

BTW what Hawaii is proposing is simply put ... Fascism.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this sentiment. Would American's prefer corporations and lobbyists control the market instead of governments?
Is it even that different in the US?
Forget net neutrality, let Monsanto control your agriculture, let ISPs decide which communities get high-speed connections.
I could go on with all the crap that government regulations have help fix but you get my point.
 
tangoseal said:
Yeaa more nanny nanny state B.S.

BTW what Hawaii is proposing is simply put ... Fascism.
Click to expand...
If you want to gamble go to Vegas, I don't understand your ardent support of loot boxes. Are you employed by EA or an investor?
Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Why not legalize rape and theft. Fascist government telling me I can't drive a car that is just sitting on the curb, FREEDOM!
Maybe get rid of the FDA and let big pharma self regulate as well.
 
Distriived said:
Honestly how is this really any different than gambling your money awayaat Chuck E cheese or that damn machine that eats my money.

But honestly loot boxes have to go they just ruin the game. That's why I don't buy games like battlefront 2. I still like original.
Click to expand...

loot boes arent labeled as gambling, is no gambling warnings etc.
loot boxes cost more per play
odds of getting what you want are very low.
its designed to be endless like you can never hit the pinnacle so you do it for infinity.

I think modern gaming has various traits I dont like

1 - multiplayer foces (enourages competitiveness vs relaxing gameplay)
2 - this leads onto paying to win, such as lootboxes and bonus type packs
3 - lack of sotry focus

The type of games Ihave always liked are dieing at least from western developers.

When do you think e.g. we will see

Fable4
Lost Oddysey 2
Successor to skyrim
Whitcher 4
Final Fantasy game with no multiplayer, no online content, all offline single player.

GTA5 was primarily single player with the multiplayer as a bolt on, however the tide turned, planned single player DLC has been cancelled, and the online GTA is making them a killing. GTA6 is unlikely (if ever made) to be what we expected from GTA games in the past.
 
silk186 said:
I don't understand this sentiment. Would American's prefer corporations and lobbyists control the market instead of governments?
Is it even that different in the US?
Forget net neutrality, let Monsanto control your agriculture, let ISPs decide which communities get high-speed connections.
I could go on with all the crap that government regulations have help fix but you get my point.
Click to expand...

These are not fair comparisons. I'd say, loot boxes should be purchased by (and limited to) 18+, but there's no need for regulation here. Your buying a product not necessary for survival or for any societal norm (such as internet). At it's core, it's entertainment and other developers make plenty of games that don't require the purchase of LB. Here's a thought, purchase games that don't have them? I purchased Torchlight 2 over Diablo 3 just because of the always on internet connection and the real money auction house. And I'm playing PoE and not playing BF2 or Shadow of Mordor. Hawaii can do what they wish, but this is unnecessary. PSS- as a pro tip, when trying to make a point
Forget net neutrality, let Monsanto control your agriculture, let ISPs decide which communities get high-speed connections.
Click to expand...
Might not want to say forget net neutrality and then straight away follow up with ISP's deciding which sites get preferential treatment. (BTW, I'm for NN). :)
 
tangoseal said:
Yeaa more nanny nanny state B.S.

BTW what Hawaii is proposing is simply put ... Fascism.
Click to expand...

How is this Fascism? Just so you know it requires a dictator with no checks who dictates regulations to qualify for this label. In this case it's an elected group of individual in a state congress who are bringing an idea up for debate. In order to become law it then must be signed by another elected official - the governor - to become law after which it can be reviewed by judges in lawsuits.

Good job not understanding different forms of governance!
 
travisty said:
How is this Fascism? Just so you know it requires a dictator with no checks who dictates regulations to qualify for this label. In this case it's an elected group of individual in a state congress who are bringing an idea up for debate. In order to become law it then must be signed by another elected official - the governor - to become law after which it can be reviewed by judges in lawsuits.

Good job not understanding different forms of governance!
Click to expand...

Ok bud. You have to pass the bill to read whats in it. - Pelosi
 
dgingeri said:
True, closer to oppression of the many by the few. Oh, yeah, that's right, that is fascism.
Click to expand...
You must feel oppressed whenever you walk into a casino. Damn those stupid rules and regulations. Let's bring back the days when the mob ran it. :rolleyes:
 
tangoseal said:
Ok bud. You have to pass the bill to read whats in it. - Pelosi
Click to expand...

In either case, we do live in a representative democracy. We, the people (US here but this does apply to anyone in any democracy), are not required to know what laws are being passed, only the officials we elect. Why it is vital for everyone to vote.

Obama was fully informed about what he signed into law - one check - and the courts by and large upheld the law after passage - second check


When Pelosi said that the bill had already been posted online for anyone to read - in its final form - for a few months. Also the quote is only the first half of the sentence

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. "

Still sounds bad though this is said after many other remarks with different groups where she makes it clear that she was referring to the benefits of the bill rather than the contents of the bill.

Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families [sic] health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition.

We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring [you] up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals.

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
Click to expand...
https://www.democraticleader.gov/ne...ive-conference-national-association-counties/
 
Gigus Fire said:
I'm a bit torn on this.
At 18, you're an adult and can get credit cards in your own name. Why does it have to be 21? That's the age to drink. I guess it's also the age to legally gamble, but if someone can get a credit car and sign contracts at 18, they should be able to spend their credit/money however they want to. If loot boxes were classified as gambling, then they would be outlawed in many areas that don't permit online gambling. Not really a bad thing, but I don't think it's at that level.
Click to expand...

Gambling is banned in Hawaii as well which is frankly a joke given how much money they could make if they allowed it. Anything that would actually benefit the locals is largely banned though. Don't want to steal business from the airlines flying everyone to Vegas once a year.
 
Shotglass01 said:
These are not fair comparisons. I'd say, loot boxes should be purchased by (and limited to) 18+, but there's no need for regulation here. Your buying a product not necessary for survival or for any societal norm (such as internet). At it's core, it's entertainment and other developers make plenty of games that don't require the purchase of LB. Here's a thought, purchase games that don't have them? I purchased Torchlight 2 over Diablo 3 just because of the always on internet connection and the real money auction house. And I'm playing PoE and not playing BF2 or Shadow of Mordor. Hawaii can do what they wish, but this is unnecessary. PSS- as a pro tip, when trying to make a point Might not want to say forget net neutrality and then straight away follow up with ISP's deciding which sites get preferential treatment. (BTW, I'm for NN). :)
Click to expand...
I agree that loot boxes should be limited to 18+ or 21+ depending on local gambling laws. If games did this state regulation would not be needed.
The best way to do this is to change the game rating as age vitrifaction tends to be asking what year you were born.
I also feel that a kid playing a game withouth loot boxes, going up against players with pay-to-win loot is unfair.
You could have adult and kid servers but that would never happen. I would never choose to play in the loot box servers and it would be problematic to keep kids out of one and adults out of the other.

I know pretty much everyone here is for net neutrality, and I was being sarcastic. Everyone wants the government to protect what they feel is important and stay out of everything else.
The trouble is everyone values different things. If you a wealthy you don't want a health care system like in Canada, UK and Germany because it doesn't benefit you.
My point is that government regulation is important, but when ever regulation comes up some people seem to have a knee jerk reaction.
I the case of Net Neutrality lobbyists were promoting the narrative the regulation hurts the economy. The truth is that without it ISPs would only operate in high density areas and would do everything they can to kill competition.
tldr; government regulation is typically good for consumers, bad for share holders.
 
Mchart said:
Gambling is banned in Hawaii as well which is frankly a joke given how much money they could make if they allowed it. Anything that would actually benefit the locals is largely banned though. Don't want to steal business from the airlines flying everyone to Vegas once a year.
Click to expand...
I agree, legalize gambling, prostitution and recreational drugs.
Regulate, tax and put the money into education and health care.
 
travisty said:
When Pelosi said that the bill had already been posted online for anyone to read - in its final form - for a few months. Also the quote is only the first half of the sentence
Click to expand...
Does it matter if the first half of the sentence is still applicable. Hidden and hidden in plain sight because it was such a monolithic legal and bureaucratic morass aren't much different.
 
jpm100 said:
Does it matter if the first half of the sentence is still applicable. Hidden and hidden in plain sight because it was such a monolithic legal and bureaucratic morass aren't much different.
Click to expand...

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post!
 
silk186 said:
I agree that loot boxes should be limited to 18+ or 21+ depending on local gambling laws. If games did this state regulation would not be needed.
The best way to do this is to change the game rating as age vitrifaction tends to be asking what year you were born.
I also feel that a kid playing a game withouth loot boxes, going up against players with pay-to-win loot is unfair.
You could have adult and kid servers but that would never happen. I would never choose to play in the loot box servers and it would be problematic to keep kids out of one and adults out of the other.

tldr; government regulation is typically good for consumers, bad for share holders.
Click to expand...

I still think state regulation is not needed. And, it doesn't matter that it's unfair. If publishers create the clusterfuck that is gaming today and we continue to buy into it then it's really our fault. EA, Activision, others, etc. would not be allowed to continue this product if we didn't buy it. I think it kind of started with BF3 for me seeing as how I couldn't join any servers that had DLC pack maps. Even if the map I wanted to play was part of the core game, I could not join that server because the rotation would have hit a map that I did not purchase. It sucked and I waited a good and long discounted time before buying BF4. They made some money off of me but not much after I saw that. Same with BF1. And, I have absolutely no plans to buy BF2, and haven't purchased CoD since I can't remember. I cannot fathom why they believe they need to regulate what essentially amounts to market operated entertainment. And, I agree, regulation can be very good in some circumstances. But I don't think it needs to be here.
 
travisty said:
In either case, we do live in a representative democracy. We, the people (US here but this does apply to anyone in any democracy), are not required to know what laws are being passed, only the officials we elect. Why it is vital for everyone to vote.

Obama was fully informed about what he signed into law - one check - and the courts by and large upheld the law after passage - second check


When Pelosi said that the bill had already been posted online for anyone to read - in its final form - for a few months. Also the quote is only the first half of the sentence

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. "

Still sounds bad though this is said after many other remarks with different groups where she makes it clear that she was referring to the benefits of the bill rather than the contents of the bill.


https://www.democraticleader.gov/ne...ive-conference-national-association-counties/
Click to expand...

If a bill takes more than an hour to read it, someone is hiding something in it. If a bill takes more than an hour to read, it does not serve the need they claim. If a bill takes more than an hour to read, it should never pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top