please end mystery boxes (loot boxes, glorified gambling)

Yes, you are paying for a chance. That's the difference. If was exactly the same, then there would be no reason for anyone to sell gambling opportunities in the first place. Companies involved in gambling are involved in gambling because they know it's more lucrative than just selling products outright. They know that that spark of "I might get something great!" excitement drives people to throw more money at them.

If you want to live in some libertarian capitalist utopia I guess that's your business. I prefer a world where games of chance are recognised for their different nature and effects, and regulated accordingly.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

YThey know that that spark of "I might get something great!" excitement drives people to throw more money at them.

Exactly, and couple of egotistical players want to completely remove that spark of excitements from everyone ( along with everything that those boxes bring ).

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

If you want to live in some libertarian capitalist utopia I guess that's your business. I prefer a world where games of chance are recognised for their different nature and effects, and regulated accordingly.

I don't want to live in any utopia, I'm being pragmatic, the world is capitalist, so ... deal with it ?
Thanks Dominus we're living in a libertarian-enough world btw ...

And I'm trying to not be too selfish, which isn't the case of everybody else it seems ...

"

Fruz wrote:

Exactly, and couple of egotistical players want to completely remove that spark of excitements from everyone ( along with everything that those boxes bring ).

If a videogame doesn't have enough sparks of excitement in it without throwing gambling into the equation, that's a problem best fixed through means other than adding gambling.

"Everything those boxes bring" just gets sold on the store anyway, I don't think anyone's trying to take that away.

I am dealing with it, by the way. This is me dealing with it. If you mean "ignore it": nah.

You should put on a yellow vest and go to New Zealand then, good luck.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

Exactly, and couple of egotistical players want to completely remove that spark of excitements from everyone ( along with everything that those boxes bring ).

If a videogame doesn't have enough sparks of excitement in it without throwing gambling into the equation, that's a problem best fixed through means other than adding gambling.

Irrelevant, silly attempt at beating a strawman.

Not sure why I would travel to New Zealand to give feedback and suggestions when there's a Feedback and Suggestions forum right here.

"Straw man", says the incarnation of reasonable debate who would never resort to, say, calling people egotistical.

I'm not making that statement as if to represent you as saying its opposite, as some kind of wacky trump card. I'm making it as an independent declaration that yeah, removing gambling from videogames is fine and it shouldn't be a problem because the game should already be fun without having to gamble. The fact that people find something exciting is not in itself a defence from criticism of that thing. Lots of harmful stuff is enjoyed by some people.

In the meantime, I'd settle for games with loot boxes being classified as adults only like slot machines are.

Yes, strawman, as I quickly explained.
The reason was in the same sentence, not sure how you missed it.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

"Straw man", says the incarnation of reasonable debate who would never resort to, say, calling people egotistical.

Ad-hominem, the best thing you could bring to this thread, speaks volume :)

Strawman does not mean anybody is saying the opposite of anything.
It means that you are trying to redirect the attention to something irrelevant to avoid answering something else.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

The fact that people find something exciting is not in itself a defence from criticism of that thing

The fact that people find something exciting IS a defence against wanting to remove something in an entertainment based context.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

In the meantime, I'd settle for games with loot boxes being classified as adults only like slot machines are.

"

Terms of Use wrote:

Age restriction: If you are based in the European Union, you must not use the Website, Materials and Services if you are under 16 years of age, and if you are between the ages of 16 and 18, your parent or legal guardian must have consented to you accessing and using the Website, Materials and Services. If you are based outside the European Union, you must not use the Website, Materials and Services if you are under 13 years of age, and if you are between the ages of 13 and 18, your parent or legal guardian must have consented to you accessing and using the Website, Materials and Services.

Path of Exile - Terms of use
I don't know exactly what is in the term of services ( as this seem to be mainly for the website ) that you agreed to uppon signing into the game, but it's definitely something of the same kind.

Feel free to check for yourself.

"

Fruz wrote:

Ad-hominem, the best thing you could bring to this thread, speaks volume :)

Yes, when you call people egotistical to undermine them, that's an example of ad hominem. Glad we agree.

"

Fruz wrote:

Strawman does not mean anybody is saying the opposite of anything.
It means that you are trying to redirect the attention to something irrelevant to avoid answering something else.

Well, I don't agree that the notion that videogames don't and shouldn't need gambling in order to entertain is irrelevant to a discussion about whether to keep gambling in videogames.

Nor was I "avoiding answering" anything. There wasn't anything to answer. You hadn't asked a question, and my first post in this thread had already made it perfectly clear that I would like the boxes removed from the game (ie. "from everyone"), so that wasn't in question in the first place. You were just repeating what I'd asked for with an insult added in, so I'm not entirely sure what you expected if not me responding with a new angle of discussion.

"

Fruz wrote:

The fact that people find something exciting IS a defence against wanting to remove something in an entertainment based context.

Oh it's an argument, certainly. To be more clear, by "defence from criticism" (which to me is subtly different from "defence against criticism, but I do appreciate the lack of clarity was mine), I meant more along the lines of "immunity from criticism". We don't shed tears for the poor slot machine companies whose products are carefully regulated, just because some people enjoy them, for example. Too bad; you want to sell gambling, you're only going to be able to do so under strict rules.

"

Fruz wrote:

I don't know exactly what it's the term of services that you agreed to uppon signing into the game, but it's definitely something of the same kind.

No, I'm talking about media classification. This isn't that.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

Ad-hominem, the best thing you could bring to this thread, speaks volume :)

Yes, when you call people egotistical to undermine them, that's an example of ad hominem. Glad we agree.

I didn't target a single individual with my statements here.

Wanting to remove an existing system that provides things to everybody because couple of people do not like it is egotistical.
It is selfish.
It is wanting to remove something despite the facts that it is a good thing for like ... thousands and thousands people.

You have a problem with that ?
SNAP!

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

Well, I don't agree that the notion that videogames don't and shouldn't need gambling in order to entertain is irrelevant to a discussion about whether to keep gambling in videogames.

Which is irrelevant here.
You not thinking that gambling is needed or not in the video game industry is irrelevant to the fact that there are lootboxes and to what they bring, which was the thing being discussed.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

Oh it's an argument, certainly. To be more clear, by "defence from criticism" (which to me is subtly different from "defence against criticism, but I do appreciate the lack of clarity was mine), I meant more along the lines of "immunity from criticism". We don't shed tears for the poor slot machine companies whose products are carefully regulated, just because some people enjoy them, for example. Too bad; you want to sell gambling, you're only going to be able to do so under strict rules.

Adults can gamble if they want to.
I could walk into the gambling facilities around where I live and blow all my money stupidly if I wanted to.
I see no problems with that.
It's also completely fine here.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

No, I'm talking about media classification. This isn't that.

What you agreed to is all that matters regarding the rules.

"

Fruz wrote:

I didn't target a single individual with my statements here.

I know. I didn't say you did. Insulting a bunch of people at once isn't somehow better than only insulting one person.

"

Fruz wrote:

Wanting to remove an existing system that provides things to everybody because couple of people do not like it is egotistical.

I guess it's a good thing I don't want anything done "because a couple of people do not like it".

"

Fruz wrote:

Which is irrelevant here.
You not thinking that gambling is needed or not in the video game industry is irrelevant to the fact that there are lootboxes and to what they bring, which was the thing being discussed.

"The fact that there are lootboxes" was not up for discussion. "What they bring" may be something you wanted to talk about, and I'm not preventing you from doing so, but it's not my job to limit myself to talking about the things you want to talk about. That's what you're here for.

"

Fruz wrote:

Adults can gamble if they want to.
I could walk into the gambling facilities around where I live and blow all my money stupidly if I wanted to.

Yes, I know. This is the link I was making when I talked about classification. If developers aren't going to remove gambling from their games, then I think it's appropriate that their games be officially and legally deemed adult activities. Marketing gambling to children is gross.

"

Fruz wrote:

It's also completely fine here.

Yes, your opinion is clear, you can be assured of that :)

"

Fruz wrote:

What you agreed to is all that matters regarding the rules.

Yyyyyes, at no point was I discussing the rules. I said I'd like to see games receive particular classifications, you responded by bringing up the rules for some reason.

I mean again, hey, if you want to talk about the rules, go right ahead! But it's got nothing to do with the statement of mine you responded to back there, that's all.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

Adults can gamble if they want to.
I could walk into the gambling facilities around where I live and blow all my money stupidly if I wanted to.

Yes, I know. This is the link I was making when I talked about classification. If developers aren't going to remove gambling from their games, then I think it's appropriate that their games be officially and legally deemed adult activities. Marketing gambling to children is gross.

They are, as I just showed up earlier.
PoE has never been a game aimed at children.

( if it was, I would agree with you ... even though I would think that letting children have a card to buy whatever they want on the internet isn't really something smart ).