Support NeoGAF

[Teslerum]

it's still the parent's fault in cases where children are swiping their card, maybe raise your kids so they don't do that kinda thing

shit parents who cannot keep their children in line are the problem

What in the world?

They WILL do that. It's called puberity. There's no magic parenting trick to not fuck up. I fucked up when I was a kid/teenager. YOU fucked up when you were a kid/teenager. Hell, I still fuck up occasionally.

If people target your kid outside of your supervision there's shit you can do about it, unless you keep it literary on a leash which will fuck up your kid even more. Unless you somehow manage to get your kid to be completly open with you. Which is never gonna happen because that will be broken on his/her way of growing up.

Same reason you don't want your kids hanging out with the wrong crowd or it gets manipulated by an ultra progressive teacher. Shit like this you get to hear about after the fact.

Your kid isn't a robot, it's a human being that develops his personality. It's an open door to be manipulated.

Edit: And btw. I fully agree that parents need to raise their kids as best as they can. And parenting suck these days. But, that doesn't mean you can prevent everything, don't it? You wouldn't leave your kids in company with young criminials or drug users and say
*Welp, I raised him right. Ain't nothing gonna happen*.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Good

Lootboxes and their ilk are predatory mechanics and can ruin the flow of natural progression in a game.

If people want the option to spend their money, fine. But companies using subtle psychological manipulation in order to coerce and persuade their audience (usually young kids) to get in to this shit, then they need fining and jailing.

It's OK to say "the kids shouldn't buy it/hide the credit card", but it's short-sighted and disingenuous. Do you really believe that a business model could be sustained on "whoopsie daisy, i accidently bought points with my parents' credit card"? Nahh, don't be daft, it can't. What it can do, is push the FOMO and social conditioning angles that kids are susceptible to "But mum, all my friends have this skin, can't i just have £5 to join in, or they'll fall out with me!"

The other option is that any game with lootboxes becomes an 18 rated game

 

[FunkMiller]

Definitely parental controls. If a 4-digit PIN system worked for our TV in the 90s, why does it not work here?

100% agree. Let’s face it, these companies love the fact that children are currently able to easily access their pay to play bullshit. It needs to end. Make it illegal to have any video games with mtx to not have a parental pin for any account under 16 years old.

 

[notseqi]

100% agree. Let’s face it, these companies love the fact that children are currently able to easily access their pay to play bullshit. It needs to end. Make it illegal to have any video games with mtx to not have a parental pin for any account under 16 years old.

Or offer account-bound wallets you can deposit pocket money into. Anytime you're entering a screen where money can be spent the brightly coloured wallet symbol pops up with the current balance.
Optional, should parents wish to do so.

Or set a filter to free items unless the PIN is entered at which point it shows for-money options and allows 1 purchase, after which the PIN has to be entered again.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

It’s very realistic, I do it lol. You don’t need to hover over them checking what they are buying, my kids get an allowance but their accounts are tied to mine. I know what they are buying, they know I know, etc, etc. Vetting your kids purchases is basic parenting, so calling it unrealistic is odd.

You are talking about hindsight here, though.
Once the purchase has been made, it's been made.

What you cannot do (and what I was talking about, though I guess that wasn't clear) is preventing spending all their money on it to begin with in a moment of "I WANNA PROGRESS NOW!".
Even if afterwards you talk about it, the kids get it, it won't happen again, etc. - by that point, EA already made their profit off of the kid.

I'm also not talking about parents who just give their kids access to their (the parent's) account instead of setting up a more limited account like you did - and then end up with a few hundred or thousand bucks missing.
That's just

 

[PleaseWaitStation4]

They'll make that money back in a few hours by keeping loot boxes in other countries.

 

[MrFunSocks]

You keep referring to "real world value". That's not a term that's used anywhere in relation to gambling. Gambling in most places is defined as "risking something of value for a chance to receive something of value". Value is not defined as a trade-able commodity - in fact, most prizes one wins in legal gambling are conditionally non-transferable and are considered void upon transfer - nor is it limited to legal tender; exchangeable currency. You need to educate yourself here.


You're mixing terms, playing fast and lose with the wording. We're talking about specifics, so let's get specifics. "Real world value", "real world monetary value". These are not real terms and have no specific meaning. Let's get specific.
And my casino example is entirely valid; chips are not legal tender and they have no have inherent value. The casino that issues them honours the value they ascribe to the chip - there is no law that stipulates, maintains, or controls that worth. Take it outside of the casino, and it is worthless. It has no value, except to the company that issues it.


Ask yourself "why can't I do this?" And the answer is quite simple: Epic doesn't allow it, because it prevents them from controlling access to said skins. Why buy a loot box from Epic to gamble for my skin, when I could just buy it for $10.00 on eBay? And so, this is done to maintain the value of said skins to Epic who sells them. Much like the casino chips, they're only worth something to the company that issues them if the company is the only one that issues them. If something can be inherently devalued, such as if I could trade and/or sell my skins, then it must therefore inherently have value. Your argument doesn't hold up.


So, I'm risking my money for a chance to get a skin that I may want, and thus the skin holds value? That's gambling. The skin is the prize, the money is the entry fee. And falling back on the in-doubt-and-currently-in-question legal definitions to bolster your definition of gambling isn't wise. You're arguing that countries don't consider it gambling, so it's not gambling... in a thread about a country that decided its gambling.
When "most countries" catch up and change the legal classification of loot boxes to gambling, will you then admit that your argument is flawed? If yes, then you're above argumentation is entirely null and void; you're just agreeing with the law, right or wrong, which is malleable. If no, then why bother mention the currently legal definition at all?

Look up the legal definition of gambling. Here in Australia it specifically says that there has to be a gamble taken to win something of real world monetary value. Loot boxes are not that. Our government, like most others, have already said that they are not gambling because there is literally no way to “cash out”. There’s no “risk“ - you are spending money, not gambling it. You can’t get it back.

absolutely, i'm on board with that

parental controls have waned these last generations, needs significant overhaul

These consoles already have parental controls that prevent people from buying anything without a code/password.

 

[IFireflyl]

You might need to do some reading yourself - they, and many others, argue that there is no "prize" in loot boxes because nothing in them has any real world monetary value.

People need to take personal responsibility. No matter how much you spend on loot boxes, the outcome is always the same - you never win any money, ever. You are just spending money on digital items that have literally zero real world value. Without that potential for real world monetary gain, most countries agree that there is nothing being gambled. All you're doing is buying a product.

Monetary value is irrelevant. It costs actual real world money, and you get a prize. The only thing that differentiates loot boxes from the lottery is that the lottery gives you a physical prize that has monetary value, and loot boxes give you a digital prize that may or may not have monetary value depending on the game.

Regardless of the monetary value, the end result on how this affects the the brain is the exact same. You're dumping real world money into a lottery (because that is what loot boxes are - a lottery) hoping you get the thing you want, and when you get it you are rewarded with a flood of dopamine. This is an almost identical reaction that one gets from illegal drugs, such as heroin.

Like heroin, the more you subject your brain to this reaction, the more it craves this reaction. This leads to addiction. The purpose of gambling laws is to protect minors and other vulnerable groups avoid this. It doesn't matter how good a parent is if their child is an addict. Addicts always find a way to feed their addiction. The age of the addict is irrelevant.

An addict wants to satisfy his/her addiction. Kids are more susceptible to addiction as the rational part of the brain isn't finished forming until the mid-twenties.

That's why teenagers suck. They're old enough, and grown enough, to openly fight back against the parents on things they don't agree with, but they still haven't finished forming the rational part of their brain to see that they're being stupid.

Either way, there is scientific and medical research that proves you are incorrect by stating that gambling requires winning something with a monetary value. Believe what you want, but your opinions don't override facts. I don't care that your entire government is retarded and doesn't understand how gambling works. Loot boxes are the exact same as a scratcher ticket/lottery.

 

[notseqi]

Monetary value is irrelevant. It costs actual real world money, and you get a prize. The only thing that differentiates loot boxes from the lottery is that the lottery gives you a physical prize that has monetary value, and loot boxes give you a digital prize that may or may not have monetary value depending on the game.

Regardless of the monetary value, the end result on how this affects the the brain is the exact same. You're dumping real world money into a lottery (because that is what loot boxes are - a lottery) hoping you get the thing you want, and when you get it you are rewarded with a flood of dopamine. This is an almost identical reaction that one gets from illegal drugs, such as heroin.

Like heroin, the more you subject your brain to this reaction, the more it craves this reaction. This leads to addiction. The purpose of gambling laws is to protect minors and other vulnerable groups avoid this. It doesn't matter how good a parent is if their child is an addict. Addicts always find a way to feed their addiction. The age of the addict is irrelevant.

An addict wants to satisfy his/her addiction. Kids are more susceptible to addiction as the rational part of the brain isn't finished forming until the mid-twenties.

That's why teenagers suck. They're old enough, and grown enough, to openly fight back against the parents on things they don't agree with, but they still haven't finished forming the rational part of their brain to see that they're being stupid.

Either way, there is scientific and medical research that proves you are incorrect by stating that gambling requires winning something with a monetary value. Believe what you want, but your opinions don't override facts. I don't care that your entire government is retarded and doesn't understand how gambling works. Loot boxes are the exact same as a scratcher ticket/lottery.

A bit of a stretch on the way to drugs but ok in my book as an example.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Monetary value is irrelevant. It costs actual real world money, and you get a prize. The only thing that differentiates loot boxes from the lottery is that the lottery gives you a physical prize that has monetary value, and loot boxes give you a digital prize that may or may not have monetary value depending on the game.

Regardless of the monetary value, the end result on how this affects the the brain is the exact same. You're dumping real world money into a lottery (because that is what loot boxes are - a lottery) hoping you get the thing you want, and when you get it you are rewarded with a flood of dopamine. This is an almost identical reaction that one gets from illegal drugs, such as heroin.

Like heroin, the more you subject your brain to this reaction, the more it craves this reaction. This leads to addiction. The purpose of gambling laws is to protect minors and other vulnerable groups avoid this. It doesn't matter how good a parent is if their child is an addict. Addicts always find a way to feed their addiction. The age of the addict is irrelevant.

An addict wants to satisfy his/her addiction. Kids are more susceptible to addiction as the rational part of the brain isn't finished forming until the mid-twenties.

That's why teenagers suck. They're old enough, and grown enough, to openly fight back against the parents on things they don't agree with, but they still haven't finished forming the rational part of their brain to see that they're being stupid.

Either way, there is scientific and medical research that proves you are incorrect by stating that gambling requires winning something with a monetary value. Believe what you want, but your opinions don't override facts. I don't care that your entire government is retarded and doesn't understand how gambling works. Loot boxes are the exact same as a scratcher ticket/lottery.

Monetary value is 1000000% relevant when talking about the legal definition of gambling. You're arguing about addiction though. People can get addicted to almost anything - buying shoes, eating, exercising, playing video games. Does that mean they should all be regulated and/or made illegal? Should there be a limit on how many video games you can buy per year? How many hours you can play? The WHO recognises video game addiction as a serious condition now, in the same level with alcohol addiction and others. I guess we should ban video games?

Gambling is a term we invented, andby definition it requires the potential for monetary gain. You should be arguing that you want to change the definition of gambling if you want it to include things that you can spend money on without any chance of monetary gain. But then do we classify loot-em-ups like Diablo as gambling? They encourage and require massive amounts of time and use the random loot drops to keep people coming back. The entire point is to get people addicted to it, to that dopamine rush.

You’re saying addiction is the reason why loot boxes are bad, which is fine if that’s the argument you want to make, but then you have to understand the wide ranging implications that that stance would have.

 

[IFireflyl]

Monetary value is 1000000% relevant when talking about the legal definition of gambling. You're arguing about addiction though. People can get addicted to almost anything - buying shoes, eating, exercising, playing video games. Does that mean they should all be regulated and/or made illegal? Should there be a limit on how many video games you can buy per year? How many hours you can play? The WHO recognises video game addiction as a serious condition now, in the same level with alcohol addiction and others. I guess we should ban video games?

Gambling is a term we invented, andby definition it requires the potential for monetary gain. You should be arguing that you want to change the definition of gambling if you want it to include things that you can spend money on without any chance of monetary gain. But then do we classify loot-em-ups like Diablo as gambling? They encourage and require massive amounts of time and use the random loot drops to keep people coming back. The entire point is to get people addicted to it, to that dopamine rush.

You’re saying addiction is the reason why loot boxes are bad, which is fine if that’s the argument you want to make, but then you have to understand the wide ranging implications that that stance would have.

Every word is a term we invented. The issue here is that the term has not evolved to keep up with the times. When the term was invented video games did not exist. Loot boxes did not exist. Medical studies that showed the detrimental effect of gambling and loot boxes did not exist. The court referenced in this article was aware of this, and you apparently glossed over this section:

EA argued that FIFA loot boxes would not count as gambling under the Betting and Gaming Act because FIFA Ultimate Team packs (loot boxes) don't offer items of value because they cannot be directly converted into money, that FIFA is inherently a game of skill rather than chance, and that there is no scientific evidence linking the opening of Ultimate Team packs to gambling addiction.

The court was unswayed by those arguments, noting that there are ways for people to profit from Ultimate Team cards that can be valued at nearly €2,000, and that people can ignore the proper FIFA gameplay and "play" the Ultimate Team packs as their own sort of game.

As for the lack of scientific proof, the judges ruled it not necessary that every new game of chance be proven to cause problems, because the Betting and Gaming Act is based on the assumption that games of chance carry with them a risk of gambling addiction. They also pointed to an increasing body of scientific research and experts warning about loot boxes, as well as reports made to the Ksa by individuals who had been affected by them.

This is exactly what I have been talking about. As for addiction, some of the addictions you are referring to (buying shoes and eating) are not things that kids have the capability of slipping into. Kids don't just walk into a store with mommy's credit card and start buying shoes or food. It's much easier to use mommy's credit card to buy video game loot boxes because there is no human interaction. If an 8 year old tried to use a credit card at the store they are almost certainly going to be stopped by a store employee, and the parent will be contacted to deal with the situation.

Exercise addiction is not commonplace (in the few studies done less than 0.5% of people were addicted to exercise) so it doesn't deserve to be treated as a major addiction.

Food is a necessity so you couldn't pass laws banning it.

Video game usage should be regulated by the parents because it is far easier for parents to regulate that than it is to regulate gambling addiction (which isn't something you can see).

Again, the gambling laws I am talking about are NOT for adults. They are for kids and vulnerable groups. You're acting like I'm saying we have to take away your adult rights, and that isn't the case at all. But if you want to put loot boxes in (which is - by scientific/medical evidence, not by a court/dictionary definition - gambling) you either need to make sure it doesn't cost the player money, OR you label the game 18+/21+ (depending on regional laws) with a disclaimer that it contains purchasable loot boxes.

This isn't hard. Making the game 18+/21+ with the loot box disclaimer allows the parents to properly understand what the game is allowing their child to do, and they can then determine if that is a game they want their child playing or not. EA can still get their money. They just can't get it by hoodwinking kids without parents understanding what the game is allowing them to do. And they have to pay a license fee. And since the FIFA game generates them ~$2,000,000,000/year, I don't want to see you ranting about how it's unfair to EA to pay a licensing fee.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Every word is a term we invented. The issue here is that the term has not evolved to keep up with the times. When the term was invented video games did not exist. Loot boxes did not exist. Medical studies that showed the detrimental effect of gambling and loot boxes did not exist. The court referenced in this article was aware of this, and you apparently glossed over this section:



This is exactly what I have been talking about. As for addiction, some of the addictions you are referring to (buying shoes and eating) are not things that kids have the capability of slipping into. Kids don't just walk into a store with mommy's credit card and start buying shoes or food. It's much easier to use mommy's credit card to buy video game loot boxes because there is no human interaction. If an 8 year old tried to use a credit card at the store they are almost certainly going to be stopped by a store employee, and the parent will be contacted to deal with the situation.

Exercise addiction is not commonplace (in the few studies done less than 0.5% of people were addicted to exercise) so it doesn't deserve to be treated as a major addiction.

Food is a necessity so you couldn't pass laws banning it.

Video game usage should be regulated by the parents because it is far easier for parents to regulate that than it is to regulate gambling addiction (which isn't something you can see).

Again, the gambling laws I am talking about are NOT for adults. They are for kids and vulnerable groups. You're acting like I'm saying we have to take away your adult rights, and that isn't the case at all. But if you want to put loot boxes in (which is - by scientific/medical evidence, not by a court/dictionary definition - gambling) you either need to make sure it doesn't cost the player money, OR you label the game 18+/21+ (depending on regional laws) with a disclaimer that it contains purchasable loot boxes.

This isn't hard. Making the game 18+/21+ with the loot box disclaimer allows the parents to properly understand what the game is allowing their child to do, and they can then determine if that is a game they want their child playing or not. EA can still get their money. They just can't get it by hoodwinking kids without parents understanding what the game is allowing them to do. And they have to pay a license fee. And since the FIFA game generates them ~$2,000,000,000/year, I don't want to see you ranting about how it's unfair to EA to pay a licensing fee.

The current video game consoles literally have purchase controls built into them so you cannot buy anything without a passcode. The kid could have your credit card with them and still not be able to buy anything if the parents took some goddamn personal responsibility and set up the parental controls.

You seem to think that laws haven’t been updated over the years, which is wrong. Gaming laws in most countries are updated pretty regularly actually, and have 100% been updated since loot boxes have been a thing. They don’t ban loot boxes or classify them as gambling because they determined them not to be, since you cannot ever have any monetary gain from them. Again, Australian gambling laws have been updated regularly and include video games and online gambling. Hell online gambling is straight up illegal here and we STILL ruled that loot boxes are not gambling.

And let’s be clear - monetary gain is literally all gambling exists for. If there was no way to gain money from a. Casino, casinos wouldn’t exist. People get addicted because of the ability to win money.Once they’re addicted the money becomes an afterthought, but they only became addicted because of that possibility of hitting it big. That doesn’t exist with loot boxes. There’s no hitting it big, no cash prize, no reward.

Now before the inevitable accusations come up - I don’t care about loot boxes at all. I have no association with them. I’ve literally only ever bought 1 loot box, and it was a gears of war 4 one where 100% of the proceeds went to help out victims of a natural disaster. That’s the only reason I bought it. This is despite the fact that pretty much all I play is online GaaS games that are generally filled with loot boxes. I also have parental controls set up on all my accounts even though I don’t even have kids yet. It takes 2 minutes to set up, once.

 

[IFireflyl]

The current video game consoles literally have purchase controls built into them so you cannot buy anything without a passcode. The kid could have your credit card with them and still not be able to buy anything if the parents took some goddamn personal responsibility and set up the parental controls.

You seem to think that laws haven’t been updated over the years, which is wrong. Gaming laws in most countries are updated pretty regularly actually, and have 100% been updated since loot boxes have been a thing. They don’t ban loot boxes or classify them as gambling because they determined them not to be, since you cannot ever have any monetary gain from them. Again, Australian gambling laws have been updated regularly and include video games and online gambling. Hell online gambling is straight up illegal here and we STILL ruled that loot boxes are not gambling.

And let’s be clear - monetary gain is literally all gambling exists for. If there was no way to gain money from a. Casino, casinos wouldn’t exist. People get addicted because of the ability to win money.Once they’re addicted the money becomes an afterthought, but they only became addicted because of that possibility of hitting it big. That doesn’t exist with loot boxes. There’s no hitting it big, no cash prize, no reward.

Now before the inevitable accusations come up - I don’t care about loot boxes at all. I have no association with them. I’ve literally only ever bought 1 loot box, and it was a gears of war 4 one where 100% of the proceeds went to help out victims of a natural disaster. That’s the only reason I bought it. This is despite the fact that pretty much all I play is online GaaS games that are generally filled with loot boxes. I also have parental controls set up on all my accounts even though I don’t even have kids yet. It takes 2 minutes to set up, once.

It is clear to me now that you only want to argue and not acknowledge the scientific/medical studies on the effects of gambling, which includes loot boxes, and that you are arguing to be right instead of arguing to provide truth. I have laid out the facts. I truly don't care what your personal beliefs are on the subject.

 

[STARSBarry]

So are mmo's also considered loot boxes then?

Not quite I think the main take here is that the addiction has more severe negative consequences because to continue to gamble you need to keep paying.

legislation can be difficult and often takes time to draw up correctly as trying to legally ring fence the "intent" of the ruling within law can be difficult, so they are using existing law here which might currently cover too wide to get the ruling through. With an MMO you are paying the monthly fee to access the title and the money is seen as paying for the up keep of the servers, in FIFA you pay for a premium currency which is then used directly on a system that gambles its the direct line here that sets them apart.

 

[MrA]

that'll learn em, what is that, 1, 2 whales worth of ultimate team purchases?

 

[BlitzerRadic]

It is clear to me now that you only want to argue and not acknowledge the scientific/medical studies on the effects of gambling, which includes loot boxes, and that you are arguing to be right instead of arguing to provide truth. I have laid out the facts. I truly don't care what your personal beliefs are on the subject.

Then argue lootboxes should be regulated because they are addictive. Don't try to bootstrap loot boxes to gambling because they clearly do not fit the legal definition of gambling in the vast majority of countries.

Baseball cards are closer to gambling than loot boxes because the chase cards are actually worth money, sometimes a lot of money, and in the US, they have been ruled not gambling multiple times by US courts. No way in hell do loot boxes fit the definition of gambling if baseball cards do not.

 

[MrFunSocks]

It is clear to me now that you only want to argue and not acknowledge the scientific/medical studies on the effects of gambling, which includes loot boxes, and that you are arguing to be right instead of arguing to provide truth. I have laid out the facts. I truly don't care what your personal beliefs are on the subject.

That’s a cop out and you know it. Sounds like you’re just cranky that I make good points.

Studies on gambling don’t include loot boxes because loot boxes aren’t gambling. If you took away the possible monetary gain from actual gambling, gambling addiction would disappear. People don’t become addicted to gambling because of the flashy lights and sounds. They become addicted because of the carrot on the string going “just one more and I’ll hit the jackpot! Just one more!”.

There have been no studies that have shown a direct link between Loot boxes and gambling. None. The big study that was going around last year about all this that is regularly cited and regularly misquoted found that problem gamblers are more likely to spend money on loot boxes, but specifically said that they found no link to say that people that buy loot boxes are more likely to become problem gamblers.

All of you anti lootbox people need to actually get to your main point, which most of the time is not that you care about the children or them getting addicted, it’s that you just don’t like loot boxes because you don’t get what you want out of them.

 

[IFireflyl]

Then argue lootboxes should be regulated because they are addictive.

I did. You should learn to read.

Don't try to bootstrap loot boxes to gambling because they clearly do not fit the legal definition of gambling in the vast majority of countries.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Gambling is addictive. Loot boxes are addictive because they are a form of gambling. As I already said (which you ignored), the definition for gambling existed before digital content existed. The term has never been updated to reflect present-day content (which comes in digital form) or scientific/medical studies.

 

[01011001]

Fair call. Now how about everyone else who does similar?

now that the precedence is set, this will go faster I presume. court cases like this take a while, as you can see by the fact that this was originally about FIF2018 I think.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

I did. You should learn to read.



The two are not mutually exclusive. Gambling is addictive. Loot boxes are addictive because they are a form of gambling. As I already said (which you ignored), the definition for gambling existed before digital content existed. The term has never been updated to reflect present-day content (which comes in digital form) or scientific/medical studies.

Ok, so lets talk about addiction then. Lots of things are addictive and not regulated. How harmful is loot box addiction? People have died because they were addicted to playing games. Why are we not regulating video games?

 

[IFireflyl]

Ok, so lets talk about addiction then. Lots of things are addictive and not regulated. How harmful is loot box addiction? People have died because they were addicted to playing games. Why are we not regulating video games?

I am not discussing every single addiction with you. I said my piece on loot boxes. Form your own opinion. You are free to disagree with me, but that doesn't make what I am saying wrong.

 

[MrFunSocks]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Gambling is addictive. Loot boxes are addictive because they are a form of gambling.

Loot boxes are not a form of gambling. You want them to be considered gambling, but then there will be a massive rethink of many industries and products that would then also be classified as gambling. Lucky dips for kids are now gambling. Kinder surprise chocolates are now gambling. Trading cards are now gambling (they are actually close to gambling right now than loot boxes), those boxes of random toys ala monsters in my pocket are now gambling. The ramifications of making loot boxes gambling are huge, because you’re now classifying an entirely different market of products as gambling. You’re saying that anything that involves randomness is actually now gambling.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

I am not discussing every single addiction with you. I said my piece on loot boxes. Form your own opinion. You are free to disagree with me, but that doesn't make what I am saying wrong.

Your piece on lootboxes is a circular argument: gambling is addictive -> lootboxes are addictive because they are a form of gambling. Therefore logically you are wrong.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Your piece on lootboxes is a circular argument: gambling is addictive -> lootboxes are addictive because they are a form of gambling. Therefore logically you are wrong.

Exactly. Any argument that starts with the explicit call of “loot boxes are gambling” is incorrect.

 

[IFireflyl]

Your piece on lootboxes is a circular argument: gambling is addictive -> lootboxes are addictive because they are a form of gambling. Therefore logically you are wrong.

• Loot boxes have the same effects on the brain that gambling has. The same type of dopamine release occurs when opening loot boxes that occurs when gambling.
• Because the first point is true, loot boxes should be defined as gambling. Whether or not it is "legally defined" as gambling it scientifically/medically is no different from gambling.

That isn't circular logic, but rather two logical steps. Perhaps you should review what circular logic is. At no point did my argument turn into a circle. If I had said, "Loot boxes means gambling, so gambling means loot boxes," that would be circular logic. Because that would cause an unending circle in the logic. That is how circular logic works. My logic had a beginning and an ending. Therefore, your logic is flawed.

 

[digital_ghost]

*EA executive looks at $10 million dollar fine*

EA exec: Eh this is chump change. I wipe my ass with toilet paper that costs more than this.

 

[MrFunSocks]

• Loot boxes have the same effects on the brain that gambling has. The same type of dopamine release occurs when opening loot boxes that occurs when gambling.
• Because the first point is true, loot boxes should be defined as gambling. Whether or not it is "legally defined" as gambling it scientifically/medically is no different from gambling.

That isn't circular logic, but rather two logical steps. Perhaps you should review what circular logic is. At no point did my argument turn into a circle. If I had said, "Loot boxes means gambling, so gambling means loot boxes," that would be circular logic. Because that would cause an unending circle in the logic. That is how circular logic works. My logic had a beginning and an ending. Therefore, your logic is flawed.

Just because opening a loot box can release dopamine doesn’t mean that it’s gambling just because gambling can also release dopamine lol. That’s a terrible argument. Looting in Diablo and destiny can release dopamine the same way that occurs when gambling, so therefore any and all games that contain randomised loot are gambling, correct? Eating a McDonald’s cheeseburger can release dopamine, is that gambling?

Please show me one study that has determine that loot boxes do lead to problem gambling. Not might, not could, not that they’re similar - that they do. Good luck.