{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/27/2018 10:10:28 PM
28
Not gambling...
[i]Central to the debate is whether loot boxes should be considered gambling and in that regard, the ESRB has maintained that's not the case, saying last year, "[b]While there's an element of chance in these mechanics, the player is [u]always guaranteed to receive in-game content[/u] (even if the player unfortunately receives something they don't want[/b])."[/i]
Highlighted key points that I've stated before.
Today the ESRB [url=https://esrbstorage.blob.core.windows.net/esrbcontent/about/news/downloads/igp-press-release-final-22718.pdf]has done another good thing[/url].
[i]The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) today announced that it will begin assigning a new “In-Game Purchases” label to physical (e.g., boxed) games[/i]
This means they are putting the responsibility on knowing about the In-Game Purchasing on the parents where it should be.
[i]Some may wonder why the ESRB isn't addressing loot boxes specifically, but ESRB President Patricia Vance told Ars Technica that it's because "[b]a large majority of parents don't know what a loot box is[/b]" and that parents' biggest concern is their children spending money in games, not necessarily how they're doing it.[/i]
Educate parents first.
This announcement doesn't change their view that it's not gambling either.
Within the [url=https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ESRB-response-to-Senator-Hassan_Vance-2-27-18.pdf]return letter to Senator Hassan[/url]:
[i]As you referenced in your letter, there is some debate within the video game community about whether loot boxes constitute gambling. The ESRB has previously stated publicly that we do not consider loot boxes to be gambling for various reasons, nor am I aware of any legal authority in the United States that has classified loot boxes as gambling. In fact, the UK Gambling Commission recently determined that loot boxes do not constitute gambling.[/i]
In the end if Parents are educated about this and pass that knowledge on to their kids AS WELL as being able to properly monitor them the part of the Gaming Industry that's pushing these types of transactions will have less people to take advantage of.
About time the ESRB got something right IMO. This is not a loss for gamers. It's the proper step to deal with the issue of "Kids and loot boxes" long term while still allowing "responsible adults" to pay for things if they want to.
-
1 ReplyThe. ESRB was the game publishers chance to police itself Fox guarding the chickens Loot Boxes are gambling ESRB is just a sticker on a box
-
25 RepliesEdited by TheShadow-cali: 3/1/2018 2:52:20 PMLOL Edit: Slot machines are slot machines no matter how anyone tries to sugarcoat it. In video games it's under age gambling and it is teaching kids/teens how to gamble. Knowing just like Vegas it's all RNG. Just add one or 2 shiny things and maybe if you spend enough money you might get that shiny thing. What's next. Telling everyone the tooth fairy is real?
-
1 ReplyEdited by iDovahBear: 3/3/2018 12:34:14 PMSo maybe it's not technically gambling. But calling it gambling was only ever a means to an end, to say that it was a misguided way to sell a product to a consumer, that it was more than morally reprehensible. Maybe it's not gambling, but I don't think microtransactions at this level of variation are ethical. Nor do some people think it's healthy for the games that then become nothing more than a glorified sandbox to waste your time opening boxes in, these are all reasons why people [i]want[/i] to call it gambling. Because simply put, they want it to go away. The problem with that is this practice is making people stupid amounts of money, and there's more than enough people willing to buy into it. So the reason people are so adamant about discussing the legality of it is because to some it seems to be the only way to get the gaming industry away from this business model which seems to sap the life out of many franchises it touches. This all also touches on arguments about whether it's right or ethical to take years developing content for a game (like Destiny 1) , advertising that content as the base game, then restricting access to it based on DLC costs that come at a later date, thus implicating what was advertised as the "finished game" to be also DLC. It's going to remain a contentious conversation regardless of what any institution says going forward because it's a hotly debated issue that hits home for nearly anyone with a family and a console. And just for the record, I disagree. I think that it might as well be gambling, though I admit if you want to get technical it isn't necessarily. But that's splitting hairs and the underlying question here isn't whether it's gambling, but whether it's wrong. Enjoy your side of the fence on that, I guess.
-
1 ReplyThen its up to consumer base to give any game with in game purchase label the SWBF2 treatment.
-
3 RepliesOh and they are being dishonest in that they are avoiding putting gambling on the box. I, and plenty of others, don't care how it is legally defined. That can be changed. Making a slot machine pay out some pennies doesn't make it any less gambling to people.
-
1 ReplyYou could use the same argument with lottery tickets "Lottery tickets aren't gambling because the buyer will always receive something, even if it is not something they want (a ticket with 0 matching numbers)" I think the "in-game purchases" label will do nothing as it makes no distinction between games that let you buy what you want, and those with loot box garbage
-
3 RepliesI would say loot boxes are gambling light. You still get something. It’s like the mystery LEGO figure packs. You might get a new guy you might not. At least you can earn these without money.
-
[quote]Not gambling...[/quote] I'm with you on this. I've even used some of the same quotes you just used, but you'd have a better chance convincing a potato that loot boxes aren't gambling than most people on here.....
-
8 RepliesThe ESRB itself is a response from the industry to political pressure to regulate video games with regards to violent and sexually explicit content. Its function, for the industry, is to propose just enough guidelines to appease trigger-happy politicians and activists. It was established by the ESA, the main video game industry lobby, and is funded by the industry. If enough guidelines are set and the industry largely adheres to them, then everything is honky-dory and lawmakers don't get involved. That's the principle of auto-regulation. Knowing this, you can consider that whole thing since Star Wars Battlefront II as the wonderful and messy process by which auto-regulation happens. It's a negotiation. Here's how it went up until now: 1) Players get fed up with the industry's growing and enthusiastic use of predatory practices and raise a fuss. Politicians get involved. Oops, we have a situation. 2) The ESRB first claims that lootboxes are not gambling and that they will not change their rating system to account for them. That's the initial stance. 3) Politicians and players then say: "You are failing to regulate yourselves. We're going to do it for you with laws." 4) The ESRB then makes an extremely minor concession by proposing a generic "In-game purchases" label, that they know full well about 99% of games should display, thus making it pointless, because there is no classification of in-game purchases. It's as if the ingredients on a carton of orange juice read: "Oranges, other stuff, etc". That's an early offer. It is minor. They probably know they will have to offer more. But when you negotiate, you don't drop your pants all the way down in one go. 5) How will the anti-lootbox side respond? That's where we are now. To summarize: The ESRB defends the industry first, by doing the bare minimum to keep lawmakers away. Any benefit to the consumers that come out of this arrangement is coincidental. The ESRB, ESA, game industry and lawmakers of a few countries are engaged in initial posturing and negotiation. ... Knowing all this, I can't think of a single rational reason why players would side with the ESRB at this early stage. It's just against our best interests.
-
2 RepliesThis is more of a step saying "see we are doing something calm down please don't hurt us" as a result strictly of the government getting more involved. They're afraid. Funny enough some "developers" are saying that lootbox restrictions is censorship. The, obnoxiously titled, triple A industry is doing a 90 degree power dive if you ask me.
-
1 ReplyWhat if I told you... [spoiler]That the ERSB is funded by the big corporations within the gaming industry...[/spoiler] [spoiler]Seriously a study can easily be manipulated to being whatever TF the "donators" want it to be... Lootboxes has the same process as gambling in casinos, so it is gambling in definition, but not legal definition since corporation of trading cards manipulated the laws a little bit to make their business have less taxes on them...[/spoiler]
-
LOOT BOXES USE ADDICTIVE MECHANISM TO SWINDLE MONEY FROM GAMERS. No, I was not yelling. I was merely typing loudly. There was a time that game companies were under attack because of violent video game and gamers had their back. This time is different.
-
2 RepliesI agree with you. Loot boxes are not gambling. I can't wait for when the states government gets involved in gaming.
-
2 RepliesParents are a lot more likely to pay attention to that rating if it were a digital game purchase, as for a physical game game, I know from experience that Parents don’t pay attention to these ratings. I used to work in a store that sold games and I still remember all the parents that would come in looking for Grand Theft Auto for their little ones.
-
5 RepliesIt doesn't really matter how they categorise it if the players still see it as gambling. The reasons it's being argued over is probably so they can legally sell them to minors and sell without regulation or prohibition.
-
3 RepliesAlthough I guess you can look at this as a win. I look at it like this. There is a big 17+ label on a bunch of games. Last time I played most of those it filled with a lot of kiddos. Not sure that a "in game purchases" Label is what convinces parents to not buy the game. They already let them run around in GTA in the strip clubs.
-
PR bull. Too many big devs view consumers as wallets only now, not consumers.
-
4 Repliesso if i get 50 of the same shit gun i guess i didnt waste my money did i.
-
Too much capital in loot boxes. Developers and their lawyers will do everything to keep them viable. Anything for $$$ (including sacrificing your children)... it's the American way!
-
10 RepliesEdited by Kone19ps: 2/27/2018 10:59:31 PMIt’s a baby step that doesn’t address the core issue. Least amount of information possible they could give at time of purchase that’s vague enough to encompass a vast array of purchases that don’t involve gambling like mechanics as well. I try to be objective but I do have a personal bias. I despise loot boxes. Not just purchasable ones. I get no satisfaction from games of chance but I don’t necessarily want them gone for others. Though I do resent then appearing now in many of my favorite franchises. Personally I think they should have to disclose odds as well at the very least without the premium currency loophole.
-
3 RepliesIMO, that label solves nothing. [i]"In-game purchases?"[/i] Uh, duh. It's not an uncommon thing these days. How about a label that says: [i]"Random In-game purchases. Not all purchased items are guaranteed to be the desired item."[/i] I get that the ESRB "wants to inform parents" (they really couldn't care less), but the way they're going about it is disingenuous - they want to say they're doing something without actually doing anything, or anything that may hint at an admission of loot boxes being "gambling," or anything that may hurt ACTV, AS, or Ubi's bottom line.
-
4 RepliesEdited by TJ_Dot: 2/28/2018 2:51:58 PMBecause a label will help, sure. [spoiler]It won't[/spoiler]
-
13 RepliesEdited by Orpheus49: 2/28/2018 2:43:53 PMThey completely freaking sold out. I don't know how you can even defend this kind of greed "loot boxes are fun" Yeah right, maybe fun for when they are swimming in the cash of children That, and when they don't even bother making a good game
-
3 RepliesThey are still feeding into an addiction.
-
I'm surprised the government didn't go overboard with their regulations. +1 to those worthless assholes.
-
6 Repliesye its not gambling... but it needs to be treated for the cancer that it is...
![[ＳiＮ]大き氷](/img/profile/avatars/default_avatar.gif?cv=3983621215&av=1124364636){kind=avatar}
