please end mystery boxes (loot boxes, glorified gambling)
" Yes, that is where there is a problem. If it were not for this type of gambling, laws would be very different, if there were any to begin with. Services have real-life value, which also puts them on a completely different level, but far from being as dangerous as the gambling that can spiral down very deep and you eventually get absolutely nothing out of it but the "enjoyment" you had while doing it. " *sigh* I already quoted the Terms of uses, where every user is either an adult, or have a legal guardian consenting to the said user playing the game. " Again, do you understand what the word "value" means ? I know that it's a subjective notion, but FFS ... " So now you just jumped from a "buying lottery tickets" cases to a "start a large scale lottery", lol, what the flying fuck ... seriously .... SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading.
| |
" That is just ridiculous. How could you possibly know that? Why are that kind of gambling simply not exempt? Your claim makes no sense and carries no weight at all. Admit that you were wrong instead of digging the hole even deeper. " Microtransactions have real-life value too then, so they are still on the same level. " Why would a kid follow that? If you know that gambling is bad for kids and that kids will not read the terms of service, even less discard a game because they do not meet the age requirments, then I think it is immoral or atleast predatory to offer gambling when you know that there will be kids playing. Oh and nice dodge on the "must be able to sell the winnings" part. One more thing you were completely wrong about. How much will it take for you to realise that you don't really know what you are talking about? " Sure. If his definition of value does not include microtransactions then why would it include services? I think it's a stupid definition but that was a minor point. " Are you not following the discussion at all? Maybe there is a language barrier. That is the only way I can explain your mistake there without being rude... Last edited by Sickness#1007 on Dec 30, 2018, 9:39:25 AM
|
|
" Cheating (on both sides), extortion, enforcement and other unlawful acts that tend to be involved with gambling quite often. That effect can be considered modern natural selection. I'm not in the slightest worried about it. I bet you won't be seen demanding for all alcohol to be banned because of its unhealthy effects to our mind and bodies. So why gambling? Double standards? " I didn't. I intentionally ignored it because you spouted some unintelligible drivel instead of something worth the words used to reply to it. |
|
" No where would it be easier for the "house" to cheat than with loot boxes. Where I live alcohol is heavily restriced. Only one store gets to sell it basically. In most nations thousands of drugs are illegal because of self-control issues. Double standard? Perhaps, but I see the value in it still. You are free to argue about the legal issues of drugs, gambling and alcohol all you like, but I'm not interested it that. My point is simply that gambling is largely specifically regulated and every distincion you have tried to make between loot boxes and gambling have been refuted and shown to be meaningless. Defending loot boxes by trying to frame it as if they are not gambling is dishonest. Instead make the case why gambling isn't an issue. " Funny, since I just copied what you said and changed it from loot boxes to services. I agree that it was a stuid argument you made though, which was my point! Point made well I guess. |
|
" Then you can't use a "It makes money, so it's OK" argument. That entire thread of thought was a giant red herring if you are finally willing to acknowledge that morally wrong behavior sits outside of purely utilitarian bounds, and that consumers of a company's product or serve can legitimately object to wrong behavior by that company that they consider to be morally wrong. That is precisely what this thread is. " This is a good point, and merits discussion. But you have to establish two things: 1. That non-liquid prizes necessarily exclude the label of gambling. This remains a gray area (most notably in NZ, which is relevant!), but is increasingly being rejected by legal specialists worldwide (especially Australia and the U.S., but in many other countries as well). The fact that you can also get much more than your money's worth by engaging in loot boxes instead of straight-out MTX purchasing should also give one pause. (Someone in this thread claimed that this is not true for the initial loot box purchase. That is true. But gambling is by nature iterative, and people objecting to loot boxes are not objecting to profiting by one-time purchases. After the first purchase getting more than your money's worth is necessarily a gamble.) 2. That the mechanics of profit-making and psychological exploitation in such a case are fundamentally different from that of gambling for liquid prizes (cash, or sellable assets, to use your Valve example). This, by consensus, is categorically rejected by psychologists. I don't ordinarily "appeal to authority," because I think common sense and logic serve us well enough in almost all cases, but here it is relevant: Most everyday folk have no idea whatsoever about addiction, or even about the billions of dollars per annum (nope, did not pull that number out of my ass) that have been made (and will continue to be made) by companies exploiting loot box mechanics. A simple Google search will disillusion such people quite fast. Also, this isn't really a great forum for debating the finer points of psychology. The papers are out there, and they are overwhelmingly in agreement on this topic. "Loot boxes are a form of gambling" is not even remotely a controversial statement among researchers of the topic. There is a third one, that you didn't mention, but I'll include it for completeness' sake and because some other posters have mentioned it: 3. That the assets being gambled for must provide more than a cosmetic advantage. This statement should be self-evidently false, if for no other reason than that expensive-yet-low-quality designer clothing and automobiles (remember Jaguars in the 80s?) exist. The assumption of value is held equally by seller and buyer, regardless of non-cosmetic utilitarian merit. Wash your hands, Exile!
|
|
" It makes sense, you just need to know how to think and use basic reasoning elements such as logic. " I guess that is what I should have done also. " I guess that makes it clear. This is just pure trolling then. " Do you know how the internet works ? Do you ? /rofl And no, I didn't dodge anything, you are not even capable of knowing the concept of value in the real world so ... It does not seem to stop at "value" though. Yeah, I am sorry but I don't consider you to be at a 'high' enough 'level' to be worth talking to, I should have drawn that conclusion much earlier to be honest. " This is very arguable in the context of PoE though, as if it was something non cosmetic, people would potentially feel significantly more pushed towards buying loot boxes, to have clear advantages over people not buying them. The limited amount of things you can get from those boxes is also another element that is relevant, as you cannot trade them, and any doublon would could get would basically be a pure 'loss' (the only thing it could bring would be a tiny bit of convenience, when playing multiple characters maybe). if loot boxes were providing currency or items, this would not be true, and it would push people to buy more and more boxes, potentially without an end but the wallet, which is one element why casinos & slot machines are so dangerous to some. SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading.
| |
" That is not how logic works. You made an unprovable assertion that failed the first test I could come up with (exemptions). If you still are going to claim it's true because of "logic and reasoning" then you are acting irrationally. We have no reason to believe it's true and plenty reason to believe it's false. Do you not care about what is true or do you just want to "win" on the internet? " It is true that I don't really know what you mean by "real life value", it seem to be another meaningless distinction. Everything of value has real life value, no? How is a cosmetic outfit in FIFA different from a cosmetic outfit in POE? Why does the FIFA one have "real life value" but the POE one hasn't? If I win a massage that costs $40, does that have real life value? If I win a POE cosmetic that costs $40, does that have real life value? There is obviously no distinction in the "real-lifeness" of the value. That means that the comparison to services was spot on. " Yet I refuted every point you made? Funny how that works, eh. Last edited by Sickness#1007 on Dec 30, 2018, 10:13:48 AM
|
|
|
Fruz, I don't want to insult you by pointing out the obvious, but if cosmetic microtransactions were not worth real money, then they would not be sold for real money.
To say that something is "wrong, but less wrong than that other thing over there" is not and will never be a compelling argument. Wash your hands, Exile!
|
|
" Once you have it, you can't do anything else with them, they cannot bring you anything else, you cannot trade them to anybody else, their they can only purely be of value to you (which matters a lot), and they do not give you any kind of advantage over anybody. I didn't mean that something is really "less wrong than something else". Or let's say that I am not trying to say what is black and what is white. Loot boxes in PoE are more than acceptable because of many elements that people have said on this thread + the fact that PoE is for mature audiences. Well, arguably, the simple fact that PoE is for mature audiences should pretty much make anything fine, but GGG should probably more explicit about it I guess then. But with those 'loot' (arguably, those are not even loot tbh) boxes ? Nah, those things are anything but dangerous, and a really positive thing for the majority of players on top of that. " I'm not going to waste any more on my time on you, explaining anything to you has proven completely fruitless so far, I don't believe it will change. Anonymous1749704 might also have already given up, I wish him/her good luck if he/her hasn't yet lol. SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading. Last edited by Fruz#6137 on Dec 30, 2018, 10:43:04 AM
| |
|
Right, I get it, you want to say that this argument is more nuanced than some people want to acknowledge. That some types of gambling are more exploitative than others. I think reasonable people can only agree with that.
But I think the fundamental objection being laid forth in the case of GGG's loot boxes is actually not really relevant to liquidity but rather to psychology. And from there we get into questions of personal responsibility vs. the state(etc.)'s role in protecting people from making bad decisions. And the relationship between addiction and personal responsibility is SUPER relevant here, yes, but also we must consider how right it is to profit off of another's sickness, EVEN IF we are not responsible for it. This is especially true if it is not a circumstantial thing but rather a knowing exploitation: i.e., we encourage this market practice because we know it is the most effective way to milk sick whales. (There's an image for you.) Incidentally, my year-old underwear also has genuine value, but I guarantee you it has zero value on the second-hand market. :P Wash your hands, Exile!
|
|
