You would want to see evidence that those kids had become addicted to the cigarettes they were given before deciding whether or not you thought it was something harmful?Yossarian wrote:I’d want an even higher standard of evidence.
I mean, ask a silly question.
Yossarian wrote:You reckon this is gambling. Legally speaking, it’s not. If and when it is recognised as gambling, then this might start to become a question worthy of discussion.
Kow wrote:A game like Star Wars is in part aimed at kids. Progressing in the game is essentially hidden behind paid dice rolls. Whether that is officially recognised as gambling or not is irrelevant to having a stance on the morality of it.
monkey wrote:Yossarian wrote:You reckon this is gambling. Legally speaking, it’s not. If and when it is recognised as gambling, then this might start to become a question worthy of discussion.
You’ve been discussing it for 8 pages already. It’s gambling or ‘gambling-like’. It’s sufficiently similar to work in similar ways, causing the same effects, same potential for problems. This is all pretty clear. But you’ve set the threshold for accepting this to be some notional study that hasn’t been done yet. And as proved by your fags for kids answer, you’re just being intentionally obtuse so there we go. We’re done here.
To get you to accept that some stuff is very likely to be harmful and should be stopped BEFORE it does harm, rather than waiting around for it do harm and then have a scientist put it in a nice bar chart for you. Now what if something was very, very similar to smoking (see where I'm going with this?). Sufficiently similar for a smoking regulator to class it as a smoking-like activity. Would that be worth stopping before hand?Yossarian wrote:I’m not being obtuse, you’re asking a silly question. I’m asking for proof of harm, your response is to ask me about something with a huge body of evidence about the harm it does.You’ve been discussing it for 8 pages already. It’s gambling or ‘gambling-like’. It’s sufficiently similar to work in similar ways, causing the same effects, same potential for problems. This is all pretty clear. But you’ve set the threshold for accepting this to be some notional study that hasn’t been done yet. And as proved by your fags for kids answer, you’re just being intentionally obtuse so there we go. We’re done here.You reckon this is gambling. Legally speaking, it’s not. If and when it is recognised as gambling, then this might start to become a question worthy of discussion.
Vela wrote:Because the digital keys sold in loot boxes have no monetary value and people cannot sell or trade unwanted or duplicate keys, they are just even more obviously exploitative.
Vela wrote:Without this option the loot box mechanic is shown for what it is: a cynical exercise in getting money for nothing. Fuck any game that has it.
nick_md wrote:I should also add that we keep using figures like £40 or £50 as the 'next thing you know you go and drop that' figure, as if this is what the regular user of gacha does, which simply isn't the case. The *vast* majority of monetising users do so for around the 99p - £5 mark, and do so once or twice, then never again. It's very rare, in my experience, for large swathes of the user base to be dropping large amounts. In fact large swathes of the user base don't spend a penny.
Diluted Dante wrote:Because we're talking about people for which this might become a problem for, and no one is suggesting this would be anything like a large amount of the playerbase. It's a small proportion of players, but that fact that it's small doesn't mean nothing should be done. What you describe in Japan sounds like an excellent idea. Do you have any links to the regulations that would be in English?
I'd add that if the majority of people don't spend much or anything then that's a more worrying sign in a sense. It means these games are mostly being funded by a small number of people spending loads (those whales again), and the developers/publishers are making them in full knowledge that this is the case. Now, if that small number of people are rich and have lots of disposable income then it's not a problem*, but what if they aren't?Diluted Dante wrote:Because we're talking about people for which this might become a problem for, and no one is suggesting this would be anything like a large amount of the playerbase. It's a small proportion of players, but that fact that it's small doesn't mean nothing should be done.I should also add that we keep using figures like £40 or £50 as the 'next thing you know you go and drop that' figure, as if this is what the regular user of gacha does, which simply isn't the case. The *vast* majority of monetising users do so for around the 99p - £5 mark, and do so once or twice, then never again. It's very rare, in my experience, for large swathes of the user base to be dropping large amounts. In fact large swathes of the user base don't spend a penny.
Yossarian wrote:You reckon this is gambling. Legally speaking, it’s not. If and when it is recognised as gambling, then this might start to become a question worthy of discussion.
WorKid wrote:I've just got the thread title reference. Doh.
Paul the sparky wrote:I'd always quite fancied being wanked off by Sue. Matthew Corbett would need to be there too, obviously.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!