15 European gambling regulators unite to tackle loot box threat

"

_Saranghaeyo_ wrote:

It really only applies to p2w kind of shit, whereas MTX in POE is strictly cosmetic.

"

xMustard wrote:

my main point is, its up to those people to do something - much like your question asks - and not up to anyone else, especially not the government, to say you can only do this X amount of times, or something like that.

"

Antaiseito wrote:

So, random example, a friend of mine went to hospital as a kid because he ate too many ice pops on vacation and got poisoned by the colour they put in there back then (where colour in a product made of solely sugar, water and colour is also just a trap because the brain associates colourful + sweet = healthy and nutritious.)

You fine with stuff like that happening to your kids? Or is it ok that the government does some regulation of the quality and/or quantity of stuff that you consume because it feels/looks good initially?
You know, like the sound-/graphic effects that make opening loot boxes in games or playing one armed bandits a "rewarding" experience.

Same predatory techniques and companies are getting smarter all the time. You know, they make a group effort, not like free living citizens.
Hope you are well-informed about all this stuff if you're ready to tackle the world all by yourself for your family :)

"

xMustard wrote:

umm gambling never has "fair odds". thats why its gambling. you are taking the big risk to try to beat the odds and win.

i thought this was common knowledge.

if you want fair odds gambling then go buy 50/50 tickets

"

Behaviourism and Games
Posted on 6 January 2012 by carlton in Games, Learning

Behaviourism

Key behaviourist thinkers including Thorndike, Pavlov and Skinner have hypothesized that learning is a change in observable behaviour caused by external stimuli in the environment. In behaviourist theory, change in behaviour demonstrates some learning.

Behaviourists describe “conditioning” as a universal learning process, dividing it into two types...

Computer games are sometimes described as a “Skinner box” because of the way they offer reward or punishment for the player’s behaviour. Like the classic experiment, many games require the performance of a repetitive task to achieve some goal or reward. In behaviourist theory, a reward or positive reinforcer is anything that increases the frequency of a behaviour. Conversely, punishment or negative reinforce is something that decreases the frequency of a behaviour. The strict (narrative) structure and scheduling of rewards is classic behaviourism and characterises many games.

Traditional positive reinforcers in computer games include the following:

Points
Power-ups
Bonuses
Unlocks
Negative reinforcers include:

Failure to beat high score
An increase in obstacles or opponents
A decline in health
Multiplayer and social games provide a set of social reinforcers including:

Status
Leaderboards

Some commentators including the Georgia Institute of Technology professor, Ian Bogost, argue that gamification is a product of a simplistic Behaviourist approach to game design. Game designer, Jon Radoff continues:

“The behaviorist approach to games that channels inquiry away from the harder problems of immersion, cooperation and competition that is so important to creating successful game experiences.”

"

Game developers and players have critiqued gamification on the grounds that it gets games wrong, mistaking incidental properties like points and levels for primary features like interactions with behavioral complexity. That may be true, but truth doesn't matter for bullshitters. Indeed, the very point of gamification is to make the sale as easy as possible.

I've suggested the term "exploitationware" as a more accurate name for gamification's true purpose, for those of us still interested in truth. Exploitationware captures gamifiers' real intentions: a grifter's game, pursued to capitalize on a cultural moment, through services about which they have questionable expertise, to bring about results meant to last only long enough to pad their bank accounts before the next bullshit trend comes along.
-IAN BOGOST