State Legislator Wants to Ban Kids from Buying Video Game Loot Boxes

tetris42 said:
I agree it's a pretty sloppy fix, but I've seen so much overreach from game companies, seeing some push back by someone with teeth is a nice change. Honestly, the one issue I wish the government WOULD get involved with is the practice of shutting down servers to games and bricking them. It's basically fraud in my eyes, you pay them money, they give no guarantee of how long the game will last, then shut it down, and you can never play it again, by design, despite being completely preventable.

In the 90s, if you had a game that connected online and the company stopped supporting it... no biggie, you can still play the game anytime you want as long as somebody hosts a server.
Now, if you play almost ANY multiplayer games and even a few single player games that require an online connection and the company stops supporting it... that's it, you never play the game again.

No other industry would tolerate this, yet here we are. Lootboxes are just another step towards seeing what consumers will put up with. It won't stop here either.
Click to expand...

They could also mandate that all multiplayer games have a dedicated server component available to the customer. Whether the customer actually has the infrastructure to run it might be another question, but as long as the server module is available. :D Never, EVER going to happen of course, but something like that might actually get me playing multiplayer games again. :D

In fact, pretty much the only multiplayer games I do play now either have a dedicated server, or have some kind of easy co-op game setup component through Steam. I run several servers for my kids and friends to occasionally join in. Not as much as I used to, but we have a nice Q3A rotation sitting idle for occasional matches, Terraria, Minecraft, etc. My kids' friends can join them on a safe server, I can play low ping to my friends in Quake once in a while. I'd play a lot more modern multiplayer games if I could run the server for select people. Way off topic now, but... I've got a little nostalgia cloud floating over my head now... :D
 
ChoGGi said:
I don't want to go too far off-topic, but taylor energy has had a leaking oil well in the gulf of mexico since 2004, and just to throw a few more out:
Vajont Dam, Aberfan disaster, Dona Paz, Lapindo mud, Lake Peigneur
Click to expand...
Regulations hurt the people who do things right and not the ones that do things wrong. Laws, with harsh penalties that are actually enforced, hurt the ones that do things wrong without hurting those who do things right. The government should have the lightest footprint possible on those who follow the law, and the heaviest on those who don't.

Regulations don't fix jack squat. Laws, when properly enforced, do.
 
dgingeri said:
No, it's more of "sure it's bad, but people need to learn to deal with the bad things for themselves, and to impose regulations on these things only weakens people and makes them more vulnerable."
Click to expand...

This is a funny argument. You forgot the roots.....

So this bill is specifically tailored to protect the vulnerable. IE. children being exposed gambling using addictive techniques. Not to protect someone like me or you (if you are an adult). We let it slip into government interference of gaming industry and argued the shittyness of the loot box in general.

But here we are, with your side of the argument only making sense if it is directed ONLY at adults.

Although kudos to you, because you just got me to take that stupid "will somone please think of the children" meme side of it. I award you one loot box
 
dgingeri said:
Regulations hurt the people who do things right and not the ones that do things wrong. Laws, with harsh penalties that are actually enforced, hurt the ones that do things wrong without hurting those who do things right. The government should have the lightest footprint possible on those who follow the law, and the heaviest on those who don't.

Regulations don't fix jack squat. Laws, when properly enforced, do.
Click to expand...

Dude, stop. You are not making any sense anymore.
 
DocFaustus said:
This is a funny argument. You forgot the roots.....

So this bill is specifically tailored to protect the vulnerable. IE. children being exposed gambling using addictive techniques. Not to protect someone like me or you (if you are an adult). We let it slip into government interference of gaming industry and argued the shittyness of the loot box in general.

But here we are, with your side of the argument only making sense if it is directed ONLY at adults.

Although kudos to you, because you just got me to take that stupid "will somone please think of the children" meme side of it. I award you one loot box
Click to expand...

Think for a minute.

If kids get involved with something gambling and cost their parents a ton of money, then the parents are forced to do something about it, and punish the child. The child then associates the punishment with the gambling and doesn't get involved with heavy gambling. It builds strength in the kid as he or she grows. That kid becomes a responsible adult.

If the government handles it, then the kid learns nothing, and the parents don't take responsibility for anything. Both end up weaker for it, and the government gains power. This builds power for those running the government and leaves maladjusted people.
 
Chunder said:
Seems like most of those posting so far would be perfectly ok with letting kids into casinos, or allowing them to buy lottery tickets... You know, things "liberals" (aka anyone I don't agree with) like to say isn't acceptable...
Click to expand...

Agreed, I can see the reasoning behind this, I'm the opposite of "liberal". How many times have we heard of a kid racking up thousands of dollars on a parents cc by buying something on a mobile or whatever, without the parents knowing? I strongly believe gaming companies know this.

Simply put, children ARE vulnerable. Addictive behavior starts at a young age.
 
dgingeri said:
Think for a minute.

If kids get involved with something gambling and cost their parents a ton of money, then the parents are forced to do something about it, and punish the child. The child then associates the punishment with the gambling and doesn't get involved with heavy gambling. It builds strength in the kid as he or she grows. That kid becomes a responsible adult.

If the government handles it, then the kid learns nothing, and the parents don't take responsibility for anything. Both end up weaker for it, and the government gains power. This builds power for those running the government and leaves maladjusted people.
Click to expand...

In the perfect world where everyone learned from their mistakes and parents weren't lazy as fuck.

Kid's aren't persons (legally), we force them to go to school, we prevent them from drinking/smoking/gambling at casinos/driving/sex/working before a certain age/etc.... we make them do / prevent them from doing all sorts of things because of their age and maturity level so I don't see a problem here.
 
dgingeri said:
Think for a minute.

If kids get involved with something gambling and cost their parents a ton of money, then the parents are forced to do something about it, and punish the child. The child then associates the punishment with the gambling and doesn't get involved with heavy gambling. It builds strength in the kid as he or she grows. That kid becomes a responsible adult.

If the government handles it, then the kid learns nothing, and the parents don't take responsibility for anything. Both end up weaker for it, and the government gains power. This builds power for those running the government and leaves maladjusted people.
Click to expand...

Or you could prevent this from happening in the first place, thereby limiting the loss in money incurred by the parents..
 
NeoNemesis said:
In the perfect world where everyone learned from their mistakes and parents weren't lazy as fuck.

Kid's aren't persons (legally), we force them to go to school, we prevent them from drinking/smoking/gambling at casinos/driving/sex/working before a certain age/etc.... we make them do / prevent them from doing all sorts of things because of their age and maturity level so I don't see a problem here.
Click to expand...
Parent's only get lazy because the government is doing so much for them. People weren't so lazy as parents for the centuries leading up to this century. They had reason not to be.
 
dgingeri said:
Making the parents lazy, weak, and stupid in the process.
Click to expand...

This is especially evident in traffic near government buildings, as I have recently discovered. Watch the traffic near a government building, and you will see the majority of the ones driving up 2-10 minutes after the hour, going extra slow and snarling up traffic in the area are the ones going to that government building.
 
I see a huge problem with the mindset some people are taking regarding this topic. Let's break down some of the popular arguments:

"this is no different to random prizes in cereal boxes or happy meals"

No, because when you purchase a Happy meal, Kinder egg, or a box of cereal, you are paying for the Happy meal, kinder egg or box of cereal : the prize is a component of the product, not the entire product, and often not included in calculating the products value per weight (as an example of commodity valuation) . On top of that, the value of the random prize in these examples is fixed, not variant on chance.

"you Liberals just want to regulate everything"

Just because someone wants to add regulations to a currently unregulated action, increase regulation on a currently regulated action or maintain regulations on an action does not mean that they politically lean left. Remember that it was Republican voters who wanted to maintain regulations forbidding same sex marriage, who want to increase regulation on immigration, and will most likey push for regulations regarding transexual toilet usage, just to name a few. Not everyone who wants a regulation is a left leaning person.

"back in my day, we raised our own children, we didn't need the government to raise them for us"

True and false. In the 1970s there were strict laws on what constitutes children's entertainment, which were removed or greatly relaxed in the 1980s, leading to the classic cartoon commercial programs we all know and love. So in some ways, the government had more say then than it does now, not entirely, and in some fields, particularly video games, the government has more control than ever. Moreover, in the 1990s, when the ESRB was formed, teen crime dropped to then record lows, and has stayed there. In other words: yes, in the 1980s the government didn't tell you how to raise your kids, but the 1990s told us you didn't really do a good job on your own.
 
dgingeri said:
Parent's only get lazy because the government is doing so much for them. People weren't so lazy as parents for the centuries leading up to this century. They had reason not to be.
Click to expand...

Bull fucking shit. Parents got "lazy" because technology allowed them to. They got "lazy" because adults are working far more now than they used to. Videos games, computers, etc have all become the babysitters for kids and that has NOTHING to do with the government.
 
dgingeri said:
Parent's only get lazy because the government is doing so much for them. People weren't so lazy as parents for the centuries leading up to this century. They had reason not to be.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure there's been lazy and not-lazy parents throughout all of the history of humanity. If anything, kids get less parent time now since a lot more parents both have to work to bring in income. But whatever, government.
 
dgingeri said:
Parent's only get lazy because the government is doing so much for them. People weren't so lazy as parents for the centuries leading up to this century. They had reason not to be.
Click to expand...

You make a very bold statement that would look great as a meme my mother would 'like' on Facebook, but....

How do you know that parents are lazier now than they were 100+ years ago? If it is true, how do you know it's the fault of 'big government' and not that in more and more families both parents are forced to work to make ends meet?

In the 1800s children as young as 9 year's old were working in factories. Children got married in their mid teens. I'm not really sure how you can compare what happened in 'centuries leading up to this century' to the realities of parenting in 2017.
 
KazeoHin said:
I see a huge problem with the mindset some people are taking regarding this topic. Let's break down some of the popular arguments:

"this is no different to random prizes in cereal boxes or happy meals"

No, because when you purchase a Happy meal, Kinder egg, or a box of cereal, you are paying for the Happy meal, kinder egg or box of cereal : the prize is a component of the product, not the entire product, and often not included in calculating the products value per weight (as an example of commodity valuation) . On top of that, the value of the random prize in these examples is fixed, not variant on chance.

"you Liberals just want to regulate everything"

Just because someone wants to add regulations to a currently unregulated action, increase regulation on a currently regulated action or maintain regulations on an action does not mean that they politically lean left. Remember that it was Republican voters who wanted to maintain regulations forbidding same sex marriage, who want to increase regulation on immigration, and will most likey push for regulations regarding transexual toilet usage, just to name a few. Not everyone who wants a regulation is a left leaning person.

"back in my day, we raised our own children, we didn't need the government to raise them for us"

True and false. In the 1970s there were strict laws on what constitutes children's entertainment, which were removed or greatly relaxed in the 1980s, leading to the classic cartoon commercial programs we all know and love. So in some ways, the government had more say then than it does now, not entirely, and in some fields, particularly video games, the government has more control than ever. Moreover, in the 1990s, when the ESRB was formed, teen crime dropped to then record lows, and has stayed there. In other words: yes, in the 1980s the government didn't tell you how to raise your kids, but the 1990s told us you didn't really do a good job on your own.
Click to expand...

The government caused the creation of the ESRB. However, the ESRB is funded and run by the game industry, specifically the ESA. Since video games have first amendment protection the government has very little control over the industry.
 
DocFaustus said:
So let me get this straight. The general consensus of [H]ard gaming community has always been "FUCK lootboxes, they are a cancer on gaming"

But now that some D is trying to curb it, this is a vast liberal agenda and "lootboxes are good and represent a healthy free society"?

Have you all become immune to the uneasy feeling you get with cognitive dissidence?
Click to expand...

No, I still say FUCK loot boxes, but that's my choice :)
 
I'm not making my opinion politically.

I hate games where jerks with cash get amazing gear, level up to max in hours and have access to expansions not included in my 60$ purchase from day 1.

I support good dlc, and I don't care about hats and skins or model updates or even sounds... If you want a purple knife in cs:go ....ok.

But if there are level caps you can buy past or powerups to destroy foes or special weapons or vehicles that someone spending an extra 500$ on gets access to so I can be fodder...... Then. I
Won't
Buy IT
 
As far as crates I recall Team Fortress 2 doing this a long time ago......


No problems there....... Just hats
 
If you want to blame parents, blame them for not making an account for their kids that isn't linked to a credit card.

My nephew has his own steam account and we add money to it with gift cards so he can't buy stuff we don't approve if.

Problem solved
 
A real shame the ESRB didn't catch the issue with lootboxes/in game purchases sooner and force publishers with them to mark the games as AO if the winnings would effect gameplay or progression(Cosmetics don't count as progression). The last thing we need if government in our hobby,unfortunatly the self governing group fell flat on it's face in ignoring anti-consumer practices. Now we have to deal with government intervention. I'm sure their's a lot of other parties to blame, I just don't want the fact that the ESRB has ignored this isn't ignored.
 
NickJames said:


EA makes nearly 50% of their revenue off loot boxes, and that figure is climbing. It doesn't matter if half of us decide not to buy loot boxes, the other half make up for the loss revenue by spending 3-4x the price of the game in microtransactions. It's basically a losing battle for gamers all around.

A developer at Bioware once stated that a single person spent over $15,000 on loot boxes.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-10-23-manveer-heir-bioware-mass-effect-ea-monetisation
Click to expand...


If that’s the way EA wants to take their company they can. They’re a large part of the industry but it will be interesting to see if franchises I care about follow suit. Also how much of that is income from games that were free up front with loot boxes, such as mobile games?

I don’t think DOTA or CS will. I’ve been playing Stick of Truth and haven’t seen it in that. Maybe they’re there. NBA 2k absolutely has them and I do play a lot of that. I don’t choose to pay money however.

If people are spending around $250 a game that’s an incredible price.

DocFaustus said:
...or play games with them...

The trend seems to for all games to start adopting variations of this model. So soon we can simplify it to if "you don't like loot boxes, don't play video games"

I know you took an overly simplistic catch phrase and ran with it but you really put no skin into the game at this point. What is YOUR opinion on loot boxes?
Click to expand...

Wanted to play BF2 but won’t because of the loot boxes. As it’s the first Star Wars game I’m aware of, that I’m actively avoiding. I say personally I have a fair amount of skin in the game. However...

It’s a little chicken littley to be claiming this is the future. I highly doubt it is. Maybe I’m just showing my age (31) but I had a hard time getting access to a credit card to buy stuff like that on a regular basis. Adults also have a choice if they want to buy it — it’s their choice if they exist to buy them. I just won’t be in the game or affected as I’ll be doing something else. It’s not exactly like you couldn’t play video games everyday for the rest of your life and run out of content.
 
dgingeri said:
This is especially evident in traffic near government buildings, as I have recently discovered. Watch the traffic near a government building, and you will see the majority of the ones driving up 2-10 minutes after the hour, going extra slow and snarling up traffic in the area are the ones going to that government building.
Click to expand...

So visiting government buildings degrades one's driving ability? :p

You're well into tinfoil hat territory here, but whatever floats your boat.
 
viper1152012 said:
If you want to blame parents, blame them for not making an account for their kids that isn't linked to a credit card.

My nephew has his own steam account and we add money to it with gift cards so he can't buy stuff we don't approve if.

Problem solved
Click to expand...

When I was a kid, I used to dig in my moms purse and take out a couple dollars and walk to the convenience store that was a block away to buy candy. I did this a lot, mom never knew, even to this day.
 
You know...as toxic as EA loot boxes are, at least they don't contain misguided social Darwinism. :yuck:
 
Last edited:
Why would a video game company, especially EA, even care about a law like this? All they need to do is release a "kid friendly" version of the game that doesn't allow loot boxes along with the release of the normal version of the game. Maybe the ESRB bumps up the rating on the normal version (the rating nobody pays attention to anyway) but it will still sell.
 
I figured they wouldn't be able to hide the gambling by laundering the cash through game credits forever.
 
This is stupid and these people are idiots. What next? Ban baseball cards or Pokemon cards? I remember when kids went nuts trying to find a Charizard. How many packs were bought and never found one? Same damn thing. Idiots.
 
I don't think these loot boxes count as gambling - you can't win money. If they want to stop children from gambling, I don't understand why they wouldn't ban Chuck-E-Cheese first.
 
Personally I've never said there were gambling, they do incorporate gambling mechanics though.
Loot boxes are skinner boxes, which I consider a pretty insidious practice to subject children to, but they're not the first place to use them and they won't be the last :)
 
dgingeri said:
That is idiocy. Capitalism does NOT require regulation. Regulation is just the power hungry imposing their will over others, not for the good of others, but for their own power. It restricts everything to what THEY allow, and that is NEVER for the good of the people. It makes the aristocracy richer and oppresses the people.
Click to expand...

Capitalism cannot exist without a regulated society. Without a regulated society, you have anarchy and rule by warlords (or kings, presidents for lifes, gangs, etc). And a Free Market and Capitalism are not the same thing and never will be, a true Free Market basically requires anarchy. We got more regulations on Capitalism because of the age of the robber barons and the effect was the largest expanse of the middle class in history in the US. It is the decline of regulations that has led to the virtual collapse of the middle class.

But hey, if you want to go back to the days of company towns and subsidence living, be my guest.
 
dgingeri said:
Parent's only get lazy because the government is doing so much for them. People weren't so lazy as parents for the centuries leading up to this century. They had reason not to be.
Click to expand...

oh BS. Parents have always been lazy or tried hard to. The reality is the shit kids could get into was much more limited in the past. For one, 99% of the time kids were basically unpaid forced labor on farms because that was required to survive. And secondly, kids had just about jack all when it came to actual options with their free time if they even had any free time.
 
DocFaustus said:
So let me get this straight. The general consensus of [H]ard gaming community has always been "FUCK lootboxes, they are a cancer on gaming"

But now that some D is trying to curb it, this is a vast liberal agenda and "lootboxes are good and represent a healthy free society"?

Have you all become immune to the uneasy feeling you get with cognitive dissidence?
Click to expand...
Surely, you meant cognitive dissonance. ;)
 
J3RK said:
Kinda? You're right nobody really wants this. Companies use them because they can get away with it, and make themselves some extra cash.

I hate them, but I'm not sure I want the government to step in to make them stop. On the surface that might align with my personal opinion, but there are so many ways that this could be later misapplied to other things. Where exactly do you think it will stop, because it's not going to stop at "loot boxes = kids gambling". What's to stop them from pushing into other gaming territory? Now all of a sudden something like the little slot machines in a Mario game that give you coins or power ups for an in-game advantage are under fire because some overactive politician says they're giving small children ideas.

Likely scenario right now... No... With former senators, first ladies, second ladies, etc. that have tried to basically KILL VIDEO GAMES COMPLETELY, can you not see the danger of letting them put bans in place.

I couldn't give much less in the way of fucks about loot boxes. I'd love to see them die a nice painful NATURAL death by consumers wising up. But allowing the government to ban it... seems a little on the iffy side.

Chance of consumers wising up though... 0%

Kinda puts everyone in a bad spot, except the game companies raking in the money right now.
Click to expand...
Well, before this shit storm started people asked the ESRB to step in, which was created to prevent this kind of thing. But their opinion was that loot boxes are not gambling as defined by the law, so they were not going to make any rating changes. They made the wrong call and now the government is stepping in.
Rauelius said:
A real shame the ESRB didn't catch the issue with lootboxes/in game purchases sooner and force publishers with them to mark the games as AO if the winnings would effect gameplay or progression(Cosmetics don't count as progression). The last thing we need if government in our hobby,unfortunatly the self governing group fell flat on it's face in ignoring anti-consumer practices. Now we have to deal with government intervention. I'm sure their's a lot of other parties to blame, I just don't want the fact that the ESRB has ignored this isn't ignored.
Click to expand...
See above. Here is the quote (source):
The ESRB said:
ESRB does not consider loot boxes to be gambling. While there’s an element of chance in these mechanics, the player is always guaranteed to receive in-game content (even if the player unfortunately receives something they don’t want). We think of it as a similar principle to collectible card games: Sometimes you’ll open a pack and get a brand new holographic card you’ve had your eye on for a while. But other times you’ll end up with a pack of cards you already have.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top