|
New Butt Order posted:Counterpoint: Actual real life lawyers who actually deal with gambling law say that lootboxes are gambling because (at least in the US) the actual exchange of currency doesn't have anything to do with whether or not something is gambling and Blizzard et al are simply getting away with it because nobody cares enough and they are making enough money to eat the inevitable fines. This doesn't solely apply to the US but pretty much all legislatures. Since it's gaming related most legislators eyes starts rolling the second someone tries to explain it to them.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
New Butt Order posted:Counterpoint: Actual real life lawyers who actually deal with gambling law say that lootboxes are gambling because (at least in the US) the actual exchange of currency doesn't have anything to do with whether or not something is gambling and Blizzard et al are simply getting away with it because nobody cares enough and they are making enough money to eat the inevitable fines. that's fair, IANAL and i'll totally concede if actual lawyers say so.  i was pretty much just going off my gut on this, because frankly the poo poo people were saying to Bibs sounded ridiculous while he sounded weirdly reasonable for Bibs. sounds like I just need to look into the topic deeper, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:in Overwatch's case, the game basically shits them all over you for free (you get 3 per week from arcade modes, plus one on every level-up, plus one for your first victory in a new arcade mode) and the contents don't actually have any bearing on the game. they provide no actual advantage, just neat skins and voice lines and such. For one thing "it's just cosmetics" is a really weak argument because literally everything surrounding them shows they have intrinsic value, one that developers are eager to exploit. It's certainly nice to not have the integrity of the game outright compromised by them, but that's not the singular determination of whether or not a microtransaction scheme is a problem. Different players also assign different levels of value to cosmetics, and ever since their inception it's clear that there are people who don't care about them at all, some that take them deathly serious (see: TF2's four-digit hat prices), and plenty somewhere inbetween. Secondly, brushing off Overwatch's loot system as benign because of how boxes work in general is glossing over the #1 source of ire: Limited time events. Every event dumps a large number of legendary skins into the system all at once, and Blizzard goes one step further and makes them three times as expensive to hamper your ability to buy them up with banked credits. Box contents are also determined when they drop, so you can't try to game things and save up your boxes for an event. They want you to buy those boxes, and not so coincidentally they made sure to fill out the calendar so there's basically never a time of the year where there isn't some kind of shiny new skin to chase after. Frankly, just the fact they only disclose item drop rates in China because they're required to by law (OR creatively maneuver around it so they still don't have to) should tell you everything you need to know about the kind of ethically shaky ground these companies are knowingly treading on. John Murdoch fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Nov 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
Honest question here. If a lootbox gives you a .01% chance of giving you the item you want and killing that boss in Wow gives you a .01% chance of the item you want then what is the difference as far as human psychology is concerned? Surely people are just as likely to get addicted to WoW to get that ultra rare sword from the dragon when there is only a random chance to get the item irregardless of actual skill (skill being one thing that separates a game from gambling) then they are from Overwatch to get the rare skin from a lootbox? Also what is the difference between Forzas wheelspins and their lootboxes? To be clear I hate lootboxes but I have been playing FH3 lately and I hate wheelspins just as much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
Wrageowrapper posted:Honest question here. If a lootbox gives you a .01% chance of giving you the item you want and killing that boss in Wow gives you a .01% chance of the item you want then what is the difference as far as human psychology is concerned? Surely people are just as likely to get addicted to WoW to get that ultra rare sword from the dragon when there is only a random chance to get the item irregardless of actual skill (skill being one thing that separates a game from gambling) then they are from Overwatch to get the rare skin from a lootbox? Killing a boss over and over again doesn’t cost money
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Killing a boss over and over again doesn’t cost money Yeah but New Butt Order is saying that real world currency is not the determining factor on whether something or not is considered gambling. Plus you have to pay a sub in order to keep playing to kill the boss over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:This doesn't solely apply to the US but pretty much all legislatures. Since it's gaming related most legislators eyes starts rolling the second someone tries to explain it to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
The distinction here is that "killing the boss" is synonymous with "playing the game". "Opening a lootbox" isn't. A game offering microtransactions to instantly kill the boss and roll for loot would be just as lovely, even if there weren't any "boxes" involved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
Wrageowrapper posted:Honest question here. If a lootbox gives you a .01% chance of giving you the item you want and killing that boss in Wow gives you a .01% chance of the item you want then what is the difference as far as human psychology is concerned? Surely people are just as likely to get addicted to WoW to get that ultra rare sword from the dragon when there is only a random chance to get the item irregardless of actual skill (skill being one thing that separates a game from gambling) then they are from Overwatch to get the rare skin from a lootbox? The only difference is that loot boxes abuse this psychology faster than the previous two methods.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
Just gonna drop this here: Fast food places sauce the hell out of their meals to make them taste better while providing as little nutrition to make their customers hungry faster so they'll ideally come right back to buy more Car salesmen offering insurance to safeguard your car payments isn't because they're just being nice, its because they make more money out of it and you know they'll fight tooth and nail to decline your claims so they wont have to pay you Store sales people who suggest you get some ice cream with your cake aren't being sincere, they are literally trained to try and get you to buy more stuff and thus give the store more money When the drive thru attendant asks "Would you like to add some mini churros for $1.39?" its not because they honestly think you would enjoy some mini churros, its because they're trying to get another 1.39 out of you Lets stop pretending companies are doing lootboxes for anything other then trying to generate some extra income, they put in purchasable currency to try and get people to spend extra money on their game not because they want to give the player a helping hand in the game but because it gets them more money. There is no helpful thought here, there is no extending the gameplay here, it is nothing more and nothing less then "I want more money"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Part of the issue is that there are regulations around all of that AND the regulators actually care at least a little bit about keeping on top of abuses made by, say, advertising corps; as opposed to lootboxes where there are (gambling) regulations and the regulators don’t tend to care about abuses because they’re largely 70 year old men who think that the vijimajiggers are just making the kids dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
New Butt Order posted:Counterpoint: Actual real life lawyers who actually deal with gambling law say that lootboxes are gambling because (at least in the US) the actual exchange of currency doesn't have anything to do with whether or not something is gambling and Blizzard et al are simply getting away with it because nobody cares enough and they are making enough money to eat the inevitable fines. Not where I live. Idaho Code § 18-3801 posted:"Gambling" means risking any money, credit, deposit or other thing of value for gain contingent in whole or in part upon lot, chance, the operation of a gambling device or the happening or outcome of an event, including a sporting event, the operation of casino gambling including, but not limited to, blackjack, craps, roulette, poker, bacarrat [baccarat] or keno, but does not include: If I’m representing Blizzard, I get two defenses right in the statute: that the players aren’t “risking any money, credit, deposit or other thing of value” and that the game is a “[b]ona fide contest of skill….” (WoW requires very little skill to play, but it does require some skill.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Wrageowrapper posted:Honest question here. If a lootbox gives you a .01% chance of giving you the item you want and killing that boss in Wow gives you a .01% chance of the item you want then what is the difference as far as human psychology is concerned? Surely people are just as likely to get addicted to WoW to get that ultra rare sword from the dragon when there is only a random chance to get the item irregardless of actual skill (skill being one thing that separates a game from gambling) then they are from Overwatch to get the rare skin from a lootbox? MMOs are designed from the ground-up to be addictive and there's a lot of scummy stuff going on in them, especially the f2p ones, but I don't think an argument that they're gambling would impress a judge. It'd be pretty easy to argue that the actual act of killing the boss is a test of skill. A game doesn't have to be difficult to be skill-based. Ultimately, the answer to "Why is X gambling and Y not?" is always going to be "Because a judge said Y wasn't gambling" (e.g. collectible cards) or "Because nobody cared enough to argue Y in court." If there's ever a legal crackdown on lootboxes, it's going to start with a court case ruling against some indie or mobile developer you've never heard of. echopapa posted:Not where I live. In that post I was talking about Lootboxes, not MMOs. So as Blizzard's Hypothetical Lawyer you'd defending Overwatch, not WoW. (also let me just go ahead and say that I'm not a lawyer, I'm definitely not your lawyer, I just happen to talk/listen to lawyers sometimes. Don't use my lovely posts in court) New Butt Order fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Nov 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
My boyfriend's job is testing and scanning addicts. Mostly alcoholics but he's worked with both gambling and videogame addicts. He says that for a lot of the young people he's tested the two things overlap. It's a full on addiction that fucks people's lives up. It's not just huurh huurh put down the controller or don't spend the money, it's just skins. It's pure impulse and has very little to do with whatever they "gain" from paying up the money. Yeah most people have that impulse control but young people are more susceptible to it. Please take these two addictions seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:90% of MisterBibs' opinions are totally fine. lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Jeabus Mahogany posted:The distinction here is that "killing the boss" is synonymous with "playing the game". "Opening a lootbox" isn't. If you can earn lootboxes in game, even at a slow rate, then does that mean you earn lootboxes by playing the game?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Spark That Bled posted:If you can earn lootboxes in game, even at a slow rate, then does that mean you earn lootboxes by playing the game? Yes, but as long as there's a way to circumvent that by outright buying lootboxes, then there's an adverse effect on both the game itself and players who are easily addicted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:...except the "gambling" is literally free in a good chunk of the lootbox games. and not, like, "grind tokens in a gacha game" free, just playing the game normally will cause you to get shitloads of them. I have not dropped a dime on Overwatch since I bought the game and I'm loving swimming in skins and voice lines and sprays and other assorted random cosmetic crap. Not to dogpile, but being free literally or metaphorically doesn't negate gambling on its own. In the UK online gambling especially bingo but also over games is massive business now, you can't escape the radio, telly or net adverts. There are hundreds of companies and for the past year many of them entice you with offers of free games. Make an account and play for free and you might just win some real money. That's still gambling, because its literally a gamble, but more importantly its part of a business practice that entices you into making bets that aren't free. You can sign up and play for months and never spend a penny, but so long as the company can hook others and feed addictions they've made their profits and done their damage. There are also casino's in Hull (I assume the rest of the UK too, but I know for sure there) that offer plenty of freebies including some games to people just for entering the building. If you want you can pop in and leave without spending anything either, they're still making more than enough to cover the costs of the free loaders. Its exactly the same business model with the same tactics, with the same end goal, and the same damaging consequences.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
In happier news, sounds like Linkara's getting married today
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Moatman posted:In happier news, sounds like Linkara's getting married today Dang, everyone's getting hitched! Freakin awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Puppy Time posted:Dang, everyone's getting hitched! Freakin awesome. It also seems like everyone is doing a better job of keeping their private lives and public lives separate. Which is good, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Alacron posted:It also seems like everyone is doing a better job of keeping their private lives and public lives separate. I was watching an archive of one of Contra’s streams where she was talking to Lindsay about how or whether to do a meetup with fans or twitter people, and she gave some real stone-cold sobering advice about practical safety when meeting people. All this just seems like it’s somewhere between a low-stakes goof and an engaging conversation and then you get a blast of how dangerous it is to be visible to anonymous people on the internet. I guess a woman who did song covers and original music on youtube was murdered by a fan after a local concert and meetup. That’s so hosed up. Then there’s the killer nazi factor multiplier with so many of the people we follow here. Even Brad had that stalker (one that we know about, anyway).
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:I was watching an archive of one of Contra’s streams where she was talking to Lindsay about how or whether to do a meetup with fans or twitter people, and she gave some real stone-cold sobering advice about practical safety when meeting people. All this just seems like it’s somewhere between a low-stakes goof and an engaging conversation and then you get a blast of how dangerous it is to be visible to anonymous people on the internet. It's settling into the unsettling level of danger that exists for more traditional celebrities. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
All the dangers of traditional celebrity with none of the protections. I feel like personal/operational security for web producers is still very much something that’s still in its infancy, if that’s a niche somebody feels like carving out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:All the dangers of traditional celebrity with none of the protections. I feel like personal/operational security for web producers is still very much something that’s still in its infancy, if that’s a niche somebody feels like carving out. How about everyone tithes 1% of their Patreon to me, and I'll just hire a bunch of people to go beat up every rear end in a top hat on the planet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
So here's something I've seen going around: it's an article from Unwinnable about Cuphead talking about racist undertones in regards to it deriving its artstyle from '30s era cartoons (There's also a Kotaku article that follows up on it) Some have been giving it flak because it come across as the author setting up some sort of Catch-22. It's like, "Cuphead's style is derived from cartoons from the 1930s, but those had racist caricatures. However, the Cuphead devs sought to not do any racist caricatures. However, that results in it white-washing history " I don't understand. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Max Wilco posted:So here's something I've seen going around: it's an article from Unwinnable about Cuphead talking about racist undertones in regards to it deriving its artstyle from '30s era cartoons (There's also a Kotaku article that follows up on it) The more I read about this outrage the more annoying it becomes. If you look at Cuphead's artstyle and are uncomfortable because it reminds you of how racist those old cartoons are, I understand that and I don't want to argue away your feelings. But that's all they are, are just feelings. It seems like these authors are trying to elevate their discomfort into some sort of moral crusade. It's social justice-flavoured navel gazing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
"Cuphead has no racist caricatures, which is a problem."
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
To be frank it's more geared on animation history than a general piece so the backlash to this piece has both the "Huuuh actually the Coal Sebben Dwarves is super progressive" crowd and the "Critics hate Cuphead because its hard" crowd have been circlejerking themselves hard on this. The earlier is a loving hoot bc they spent years screaming about the """Calarts""" style and how CN is a fiery pit of nepotism bc they don't show loving Bosko and how Rebecca Sugar only got a position bc she sucked off an executive suddenly tried to act all innocent when they saw people cheering the Burbank fires getting close to the CN offices. gently caress them so hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
Wait, is Cuphead a guide on 30's animation and jazz?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:"Cuphead has no racist caricatures, which is a problem."
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 09:54
|
|
|
Cuphead reminds me a lot of dark souls and by that I mean that it’s a game that has such an obnoxious and circlejerk-y fanbase that I will not touch it with a ten foot pole.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 10:44
|
|
|
watho posted:Cuphead reminds me a lot of dark souls Denying yourself good things because of a fanbase is really loving dumb. You are not forced to interact with them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
Plus the devs themselves were like "yeah the backlash had a point" re: the dificulty and added a better tutorial and a simpler dificulty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
There's a good article out there to be written that uses Cuphead as a stepping stone to discuss 1930's animation and where it fits in, including all the racist parts - however, that is utterly not it. The problem is the tone - it's so pointlessly accusatory, blaming them for something that was never even remotely part of the equation for this game. You really have to reach hard into the past to wrench racism out of the tropes that Cuphead uses that have LONG been homogenised by all forms of media. Whatever whitewashing occured here, it happened many years ago. It says things like "well, Jay-Z's done the Story of OJ so why can't Cuphead do similar?"....uh, Jay-Z is black? Studio MDHR are white? I'm sure that would have gone REALLY well in the press if they'd included minstrel characters in the game or whatever and tried to justify it as some sort of social commentary...it is indeed such a Catch-22. Put very kindly, it's all a massive reach and the sort of analysis where, if you stretch it to its conclusion, you can basically connect everything to everything. Also Cuphead is a fine game and you really shouldn't deny it for silly fanbase reasons. It's bloody hard, but not in the Dark Souls way - just in yr typical indie arcade game way. EDIT: Seems obvious, but should be pointed out: Cuphead is a game that uses 1930's animation aesthetics. It is not a game about 1930's animation. There's a big difference and it isn't really fair to judge it as if it were the latter. Kim Justice fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Nov 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
i'm bloody hard
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
watho posted:and by that I mean that it’s a game that has such an obnoxious and circlejerk-y fanbase that I will not touch it with a ten foot pole. And that's still dumb in this case too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 12:08
|
|
|
Kim Justice posted:There's a good article out there to be written that uses Cuphead as a stepping stone to discuss 1930's animation and where it fits in, including all the racist parts - however, that is utterly not it. The problem is the tone - it's so pointlessly accusatory, blaming them for something that was never even remotely part of the equation for this game. You really have to reach hard into the past to wrench racism out of the tropes that Cuphead uses that have LONG been homogenised by all forms of media. Whatever whitewashing occured here, it happened many years ago. All I know is that if I were the Cuphead devs, this and the articles about the difficulty debacle would be enough dissuasion for me to never try making a game again. Also, by 'fanbase,' is that referring die-hard defenders of the game's difficulty, or are there people who make weird original characters and fanfics or whatever? If it's the latter, I hadn't really heard of anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
I'm sure there's Cuphead Rule 34 out there but my guess is the whole thing is referring to the odd "GIT GUD" types kicking around (which was exacerbated somewhat by...Dean Takahashi? Is that his name? Guy who wasn't much cop at it and blamed the game).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Max Wilco posted:All I know is that if I were the Cuphead devs, this and the articles about the difficulty debacle would be enough dissuasion for me to never try making a game again. I'm pretty sure the piles of money they are making make up for some idiots being idiots
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 12:14
|
|