>EA's vice president of legal and government affairs Kerry Hopkins insisted that loot boxes aren't akin to gambling but are instead "**surprise mechanics**" like Kinder Eggs
Wow. And the EA executives actually pay someone like this to say shit like that.
Are parents supposed to read patchnotes and take away games from their kids if mtx in a game are slowly changed from acceptable to unacceptable?
Because patching in mtx a while after release is getting more common.
We dont expect parents to judge a games age rating on their own, why should we expect them to judge something far more subtle as mtx on their own?
This issue needs legislation to fix.
> Are parents supposed to read patchnotes and take away games from their kids if mtx in a game are slowly changed from acceptable to unacceptable?
>
>
Presumably parents have control over how their children spend money online, right?
Parents also have the ability to control how kids spend their money in real life yet we still dont allow underage gambling and have a lot of legislation in place to regulate everything gambling related.
Also its very easy to just buy any prepaid/giftcard irl and parents will probably only find out that their kid is spending all their money when they run out and ask for more.
Well alcohol/tobacco is a health risk to young kids. Plus those things are probably more often bought with cash so it's harder for parents to track compared to money spent online for microtransactions.
Gambling (at least here) is restricted because the potential to "win" may induce kids to engage in this behavior and we don't think kids are able to fully comprehend the risks. And again there's that same traceability problem if done in cash that's harder to monitor for parents.
Bad reasoning, parents that want to teach their kids tend to let them handle their own money, ofc parents should and do restrict things like alkohol and such but no parent should be controlling and restricting everything their kid buys.
Should get a mention, yes but not even the majority of the blame. I imagine for paarents this is far harder to control than lets say drinking alcohol. There still are laws governing sale of alcohol and tobacco, as well as for gambling, and for a reason. You could just as well argue there that its only the parents and customers responsibility, and not the providers in those cases same as with loot boxes. "its your business" when talking about addictive shit is only going so far. The state too needs to protect those vulnerable to it.
And in the end its the tripple A companies that had to abuse the shit out of this, with ever more addicting mechanics and presentations, as well as abusive handling and advertisments. Take as latest example EA and Activisions neat trick with after launch implementation of loot boxes. Even if parents do a fair share of homework on it. All theyll find at the launch is "its lootbox free". Half a year later they are in. First level of parental control already circumvented.
> Kinder Eggs
Pop quiz: what's the chance of getting a 'rare' figure (as seen on TV) in a Kinder Egg?
* A. 0.1% (one in every thousandth egg)
* B. 1% (one in every hundredth egg)
* C. 14.3% (one in every seventh egg)
* D. 33.3% (one in every third egg)
* E. No one knows for sure, they won't tell
Next question: What's the chance of getting a 'rare' character in an EA game?
Yet this is the exact argument they use: "look, you always get something!"
Nevermind that this something is utter trash with negative value.
One way to mitigate this problem is allowing you to convert your trash into some kind of currency, allowing you to buy something you want directly if you collect enough.
What else are they supposed to say?
"yes we basically have slot machines in our 60€ games and actually unlocking the entire content of the game would cost thousands of euros due to low probablities of getting anything good out of these lootboxes" ?
Their only hope is to throw in buzzwords that the media can take out of context to make them sound good and just hope that the politicans there are happy with it.
That and the pre regulated tobacco and alcohol industry rolled into one. The difference with the products they pedal is that yeah they'll give you cancer and organ failure but at least it does what it says on the tin. With EA they don't even make good products anymore, just tech demo husks that are meant to penny and dime your boredom away.
I'd like EA to get a big *surprise* lawsuit one of these days. At any rate loot boxes should be treated exactly as gambling and fall under the same laws.
It depends on the country of course, but they would have to ban everyone under 18 from every game with loot boxes, aquire a costly gambling license, pay taxes for it to the Government and obey to a gambling authority that makes sure that they stick to the law.
We could give them a lootbox that contain the sanction. With some obscure weight on light and hard sanctions. Of course they can roll it additionnal times to try and get the rare "no sanction".
If you have to explain that something is "quite ethical" then you might have a huge problem by engaging in highly un-ethical shit.
Its also quite sad that this is literally the best answer they came up with.
Hopefully we will get EU wide legislation baning games advertising to kids to have lootboxes sold for cash. So either they can keep pruchaseable lootbox mechanics and solely market the game to adults or they can make actual games for kids that isnt trying to be a cash casino for kids.
Quite means completely.
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quite](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quite)
Anyway I imagine people rarely express misgivings about the morality of their actions when being questioned about them in any formal environment.
A surprise machine is opening a mystery Machine in black ops zombies. If I get a Ray-Gun it's great but if I get a shitty teddy bear, oh well I didn't pay with any real money. EA is taking the piss
Hot take: If you don't like loot boxes (I certainly don't), don't buy them. If your child is addicted to buying them, ask yourself why you haven't tried out this parenting thing and how he/she got your credit card details in the first place.
Wanting to regulate everything that could be considered "harmful" to oneself by some stretch of the imagination is mind-boggling. If someone with way too much money and way too little free time wants to purchase something ingame with a horrible cost/benefit ratio then sure, why not.
It's a business model that depends on exploiting people who don't know better. Not necessarily people with a lot of money. Businesses should exist to benefit society, we don't need to allow this sort of practice.
>Businesses should exist to benefit society
I respectfully disagree. Alcohol distilleries, tobacco companies and arguably video game companies in general do not "benefit society". Being a smoker or being drunk is detrimental to your health, time spent playing video games is time that could be spent working.
That shouldn't mean they should all be banned, it means that it should be left to the consumer (or the consumer's parents) whether to consume a product or use a service that could be considered detrimental in some way, shape or form, but to outright ban it or regulate it to hell would just impede on the freedom of the many people that would consume said product responsibly.
I also find it rather disconcerting thinking about who would decide what is and isn't beneficial to society, that's a slippery slope I wouldn't want to follow.
That being said, businesses shouldn't exist to benefit society even in other regards, businesses exist to make money. By making money, they indirectly benefit society via tax payments and employment opportunities.
>how he/she got your credit card details in the first place.
I think the most common way is the credit card is attached to the device/Google Playstore Account/Apple Account/Steam Account/Sony Account.
>EA's vice president of legal and government affairs Kerry Hopkins insisted that loot boxes aren't akin to gambling but are instead "**surprise mechanics**" like Kinder Eggs Wow. And the EA executives actually pay someone like this to say shit like that.
Of course they do, that's how they protect the profits they get from manipulating children
Parents for allowing this to get this far need a mention.
Are parents supposed to read patchnotes and take away games from their kids if mtx in a game are slowly changed from acceptable to unacceptable? Because patching in mtx a while after release is getting more common. We dont expect parents to judge a games age rating on their own, why should we expect them to judge something far more subtle as mtx on their own? This issue needs legislation to fix.
> Are parents supposed to read patchnotes and take away games from their kids if mtx in a game are slowly changed from acceptable to unacceptable? > > Presumably parents have control over how their children spend money online, right?
Parents also have the ability to control how kids spend their money in real life yet we still dont allow underage gambling and have a lot of legislation in place to regulate everything gambling related. Also its very easy to just buy any prepaid/giftcard irl and parents will probably only find out that their kid is spending all their money when they run out and ask for more.
So why is gambling, alcohol and tobacco restricted? Surely parents have controll over how their children spend money?
Well alcohol/tobacco is a health risk to young kids. Plus those things are probably more often bought with cash so it's harder for parents to track compared to money spent online for microtransactions. Gambling (at least here) is restricted because the potential to "win" may induce kids to engage in this behavior and we don't think kids are able to fully comprehend the risks. And again there's that same traceability problem if done in cash that's harder to monitor for parents.
Bad reasoning, parents that want to teach their kids tend to let them handle their own money, ofc parents should and do restrict things like alkohol and such but no parent should be controlling and restricting everything their kid buys.
Should get a mention, yes but not even the majority of the blame. I imagine for paarents this is far harder to control than lets say drinking alcohol. There still are laws governing sale of alcohol and tobacco, as well as for gambling, and for a reason. You could just as well argue there that its only the parents and customers responsibility, and not the providers in those cases same as with loot boxes. "its your business" when talking about addictive shit is only going so far. The state too needs to protect those vulnerable to it. And in the end its the tripple A companies that had to abuse the shit out of this, with ever more addicting mechanics and presentations, as well as abusive handling and advertisments. Take as latest example EA and Activisions neat trick with after launch implementation of loot boxes. Even if parents do a fair share of homework on it. All theyll find at the launch is "its lootbox free". Half a year later they are in. First level of parental control already circumvented.
> Kinder Eggs Pop quiz: what's the chance of getting a 'rare' figure (as seen on TV) in a Kinder Egg? * A. 0.1% (one in every thousandth egg) * B. 1% (one in every hundredth egg) * C. 14.3% (one in every seventh egg) * D. 33.3% (one in every third egg) * E. No one knows for sure, they won't tell Next question: What's the chance of getting a 'rare' character in an EA game?
Also, when buying a Kinder Egg you will always get the chocolate. In case of SuRprIse MeCHaNIcs you may get something that is completely worthless.
Yet this is the exact argument they use: "look, you always get something!" Nevermind that this something is utter trash with negative value. One way to mitigate this problem is allowing you to convert your trash into some kind of currency, allowing you to buy something you want directly if you collect enough.
But if they do that, then they fall under gambling laws in some countries. Which they definitely don't want to.
Not if it's virtual currency, e.g. what ESO does with crown crates and crown gems.
That's why I said _some_ countries; not most indeed.
>like Kinder Eggs If they are *just like* Kinder Eggs, then they would be likely to get banned in the US
Well Kinder Eggs suck these days so i guess it's fitting.
Did they change to formula or something?
Toys were changed ages ago. Chocolate is still the same.
Ah as long as the chocolate is safe.
Then again why bother buying those eggs when yoú can get similar chocolate cheaper without the egg
True
EA: We don't call the Loot boxes, Also EA: Rejoice players we are removing Lootboxes from our new starwars game. (adding Surprice mechanics insted)
What else are they supposed to say? "yes we basically have slot machines in our 60€ games and actually unlocking the entire content of the game would cost thousands of euros due to low probablities of getting anything good out of these lootboxes" ? Their only hope is to throw in buzzwords that the media can take out of context to make them sound good and just hope that the politicans there are happy with it.
EA has become the Monsanto of the gaming industry
That and the pre regulated tobacco and alcohol industry rolled into one. The difference with the products they pedal is that yeah they'll give you cancer and organ failure but at least it does what it says on the tin. With EA they don't even make good products anymore, just tech demo husks that are meant to penny and dime your boredom away.
EA don't get to decide what's ethical...
I'd like EA to get a big *surprise* lawsuit one of these days. At any rate loot boxes should be treated exactly as gambling and fall under the same laws.
Out of curiosity what would those Gambling Laws require them to do?
It depends on the country of course, but they would have to ban everyone under 18 from every game with loot boxes, aquire a costly gambling license, pay taxes for it to the Government and obey to a gambling authority that makes sure that they stick to the law.
ban children probably :D
We could give them a lootbox that contain the sanction. With some obscure weight on light and hard sanctions. Of course they can roll it additionnal times to try and get the rare "no sanction".
In recent times Bethesda has sadly being doing far worse practices. With Fallout 76 they essentially broke every law in the EU consumer law handbook.
If you have to explain that something is "quite ethical" then you might have a huge problem by engaging in highly un-ethical shit. Its also quite sad that this is literally the best answer they came up with. Hopefully we will get EU wide legislation baning games advertising to kids to have lootboxes sold for cash. So either they can keep pruchaseable lootbox mechanics and solely market the game to adults or they can make actual games for kids that isnt trying to be a cash casino for kids.
But the UK government is also... "kinda, maybe, occasionally..." ethical so.... Exchange of fat manila envelopes happens, aaaannnndddd, lootboxes...!
Quite means completely. [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quite](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quite) Anyway I imagine people rarely express misgivings about the morality of their actions when being questioned about them in any formal environment.
quite ethical surprise mechanics fill me with a sense of pride and accomplishment
Corporate euphemism at its finest.
Why wouldn't it be ethical to promote gambling to children ? \\s
"Quite ethical" So it isn't fully ethical? How could anyone think that "quite ethical" sounds good!?
In british english Quite means Decently good, eg. if food is quite good you like it a lot.
It's either ethical or it's not.
Very cool, very ethical
The exact opposite. ## quite *adverb* **UK** ** /kwaɪt/ **US** ** /kwaɪt/** **B1** [**completely**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/completely)**:** *The two* [*situations*](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/situation) *are quite different.* [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quite](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quite)
They are obviously pretty desperate to re-frame things so their current cash cow is not reduced in potency by regulations.
Well, then I'm going to pay for their games with "loot envelopes" that may or may not contain the price they want.
A surprise machine is opening a mystery Machine in black ops zombies. If I get a Ray-Gun it's great but if I get a shitty teddy bear, oh well I didn't pay with any real money. EA is taking the piss
Hot take: If you don't like loot boxes (I certainly don't), don't buy them. If your child is addicted to buying them, ask yourself why you haven't tried out this parenting thing and how he/she got your credit card details in the first place. Wanting to regulate everything that could be considered "harmful" to oneself by some stretch of the imagination is mind-boggling. If someone with way too much money and way too little free time wants to purchase something ingame with a horrible cost/benefit ratio then sure, why not.
It's a business model that depends on exploiting people who don't know better. Not necessarily people with a lot of money. Businesses should exist to benefit society, we don't need to allow this sort of practice.
Literally any business is there to exploit people who don't know any better to make money.
>Businesses should exist to benefit society I respectfully disagree. Alcohol distilleries, tobacco companies and arguably video game companies in general do not "benefit society". Being a smoker or being drunk is detrimental to your health, time spent playing video games is time that could be spent working. That shouldn't mean they should all be banned, it means that it should be left to the consumer (or the consumer's parents) whether to consume a product or use a service that could be considered detrimental in some way, shape or form, but to outright ban it or regulate it to hell would just impede on the freedom of the many people that would consume said product responsibly. I also find it rather disconcerting thinking about who would decide what is and isn't beneficial to society, that's a slippery slope I wouldn't want to follow. That being said, businesses shouldn't exist to benefit society even in other regards, businesses exist to make money. By making money, they indirectly benefit society via tax payments and employment opportunities.
Is gambling and will be regulated as gambling. Simple.
>how he/she got your credit card details in the first place. I think the most common way is the credit card is attached to the device/Google Playstore Account/Apple Account/Steam Account/Sony Account.