| General > General Technical Chat |
| Video game "loot boxes" may become federally illegal??...... |
| << < (7/16) > >> |
| Cyberdragon:
--- Quote from: jmelson on May 10, 2019, 09:19:14 pm --- --- Quote from: Smokey on May 10, 2019, 10:38:22 am --- --- Quote ---"Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan (N.H.), who said the practice of paying for random loot had a “close link to gambling.”" --- End quote --- --- End quote --- HMMM, Amazing! So, investing in real estate or the stock market is gambling, too, and clearly ought to be outlawed! Jon --- End quote --- Oh dear, we'll definately have to get rid of crypto too! ::) |
| Brumby:
Sigh... As I said before: --- Quote from: Brumby on May 10, 2019, 12:50:10 pm ---This sort of argument is never going to have consensus, because a line has to be drawn somewhere - and there will always be one problem ... getting everyone to agree where that line gets drawn. --- End quote --- |
| tszaboo:
--- Quote from: free_electron on May 10, 2019, 04:04:38 pm ---except the game doesn't do anything useful. it's just timepass .... --- End quote --- Well, you would think that. First there are people trying to make a living on twitch and other steaming platforms, where this is practically necessary to run competitively. Then there is the group belonging. I played Word of Tanks a few years ago. A group of 8 people are required to play a certain strategic game type. They literally kicked people out of the group, because they didnt had the certain type of "required" tank, which gave a certain edge in the game. The tank was 50 EUR, the price of a full game. Imagine, that they place it in a lootbox, 2 EUR each, 2% chance of getting the tank.Putting math aside, after 100 trials, you have 87% chance of getting the tank. So if you dont have it, sorry. Go and play something else, while we the big boys go and play the interesting part of the game. |
| GlennSprigg:
--- Quote from: Smokey on May 10, 2019, 12:41:43 pm --- Speaking about adults here, where does that thinking end? You can try to make the case that all alcohol should be illegal for everyone because some people are addicted to it. I don't think that's a good idea, but it's probably the least controversial example. Fine. How about another extreme? What about donuts, or sugary drinks, or just food in general? Do we ban food that our bodies tell us tastes REALLY good but isn't the most healty? Give people a government approved daily food allowance? A significant number of people are legitimately addicted to food. It's impossible to rid the world of all things that some people will feel compelled to do. Trying that only punishes the majority of people with a normal level of self restraint..... [etc]... --- End quote --- I don't know about the U.S.A., but here in Australia (in W.A. at least?), Primary School & Kindy is like being run by the NAZI's now !! Teachers/officials can/do go through kids lunch-boxes, and ban them from having anything they feel is unhealthy... And some have actually BANNED kids from having HAM in a sandwich or whatever, as it may cause offense to a 'certain' (ahemm..) religious group.... %$&# off !! |O |
| SparkyFX:
--- Quote from: NANDBlog on May 11, 2019, 09:44:11 am ---They literally kicked people out of the group, because they didnt had the certain type of "required" tank, which gave a certain edge in the game. The tank was 50 EUR, the price of a full game.[...]So if you dont have it, sorry. Go and play something else, while we the big boys go and play the interesting part of the game. --- End quote --- Well, that is what users do with other users... don´t play with them. There is of course this social component to it and people can act like 12 year olds. --- Quote ---You can try to make the case that all alcohol should be illegal for everyone because some people are addicted to it. I don't think that's a good idea, but it's probably the least controversial example. --- End quote --- It was banned in the US at some point - which gave an uprise to a completely unregulated black market, no taxes on sales, no limits on consumption, no control (food safety, health insurance cost). Then the ban was lifted, but with somewhat regulation. But guess what, it´s still illegal/punished to drive drunk, you get problems trying to work drunk. Which means it is not as "free" as free can be, which would make it practically illegal by the definition of some users here in this thread, but only if you come in conflict with the regulation. Alcohol is a good example in which personal freedom, social acceptance, avoidance of damage, implications for the society and lawmaking comes together. I don´t think we need to talk about nanny-ing adult people to see that the problems are wider than just the directly affected person and this is not a political question either, as there is money funneled out of an economy - whichever form it has - without exchange of any value and it crosses the line between purchase of goods and paying for a service. If a problem gets big enough, it can ruin any economy. The addiction component of it is what causes loss to societies, if everyone would stop when the personal budget is gone it would not be that big of a problem. --- Quote ---And some have actually BANNED kids from having HAM in a sandwich --- End quote --- Some kids are little idiots and just by guessing this story has probably something more to it than just a potential offense. Bureaucrats usual move too slow for potential dangers. Unfortunately no one made it so far to ban idiots, so it must have been the ham. But thats not the topic here. Well... paying for the consequences that some people cause is unavoidable for anyone in a society, which implies damages need at some point be limited, as the budget is equally limited. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |