@mdinger: I think your premature anger towards my feelings on loot boxes made you jump to many conclusions based on pure assumptions.
"Honestly I'm discussed out. But again, you seem to be unable to conflate lootboxes with gambling because most lawmakers don't want to go there. That doesn't make it more "right" or that the spirit of the law can't be applied to lootboxes. You can spin it how you like, but it is irrefutable that this is real world money exchanged for a mere chance to win something. Indeed that's pretty much what gambling is according to the dictionary built into Google:
"2. take risky action in the hope of a desired result." I fail to see how lootboxes don't fit into that definition given that using real world money is very much "risky" since you need said money to survive in our society."
There are multiple fallacies with this argument.
First off, that's the secondary definition of gambling on that page. The primary definition is a lot closer to traditional gambling:
1.play games of chance for money; bet."she was fond of gambling on cards and horses"
synonyms:
bet, place/lay a bet on something, stake money on something, back the horses, game;informalplay the ponies"he started to gamble more often"
As far as I can tell, loot boxes are not a chance for money.
The second fallacy is that this is a dictionary definition, not a regulatory definition or legislative definition.
You seem to be from New Zealand. But the ESRB is based in the US and PEGI is based in Europe. So you might know the entirety of all the laws and regulations abided by in those territories.
"You can cite interpretations of laws all you like, but it doesn't make lootboxes any less exploitative or insidious or, indeed, gambling."
I never said loot boxes weren't exploitative or insidious. I think in some circumstances, they are. Like the recent fiasco with loot boxes in Destiny 2 and Star Wars: Battlefront 2 (2017).
I said that loot boxes need to be their own category and labeled as such within the ESRB and PEGI.
Why? Because current gambling regulations and laws have many loopholes. Video games publishers will take advantage of lacuna in gambling laws to bypass those laws.
Why? Because many companies and casinos outside of the video game industry have already been taking advantage of those loopholes.
Creating new categories within the ESRB and PEGI gives video game developers the opportunities to implement and use loot boxes fairly - without taking advantage of loopholes.
If traditional gambling was 100% exploitative and insidious, then no one would engage in it. No one would be able to live off gambling tournaments wins from it - no one would be able to live off of gambling. Yet thousands of people do.
Now, loot boxes are another type of monster that needs its own classifications.
@mdinger: I do understand what you're saying. The issue here is you're not understanding traditional gambling regulations, and why legislators cannot equate items dropped from loot boxes to an objective, static monetary value.
"You can still win your cash prize in the normal way, but you always get something, which apparently isn't then gambling (well according to the ESRB)."
Your attempt at an analogy between slot machines and loot boxes is an equivalency fallacy.
"So similarly, if you want the Legendary costume in Overwatch for example but you end up with a costume you already have, it's perfectly fine because you still got something (even if it's not what you wanted). It's not gambling then, you see, because you are guaranteed a prize - that's how these predators have been spinning it. If what they say is true, then it would follow that you can defeat current gambling laws the same way: i.e. you always get something from a slot machine (e.g. a black m&m) with a chance to win what you want (money in that case)."
But what if you actually do end up with a legendary McCree costume you wanted in Overwatch? What would be the objective, static monetary value on that?
What if you ended up with a rare costume that you didn't have before that you didn't think you'd want, but you kind of like it anyway? What's the objective, static monetary value of that?
I have already talked about this situation before in my very early, original post. But you seem to have not read it, so I'll reiterate:
"You could say that getting unwanted items from a loot box is a loss, but that is subjective. If Player A has no good weapons, but then a really good sniper rifle drops from a loot box, that's a gain. But if Player B already has tons of sniper rifles, and needs a shotgun to drop from a loot box, but instead a really good sniper rifle drops for Player B, then it's a loss. Because the sniper rifle is completely useless to Player B, but is an immense gain to Player A, the reward is completely dependent on the individual.
Loot box gains and losses are mostly situational and subjective, and you always get something from a loot box. So saying that it's the same as going to a casino, putting down $500, and losing all $500 is the same isn't the equivalent to always coming out with something from a loot box."
Let me put it in simpler terms:
If John paid $1 for a loot box, and got a legendary McCree costume drop from the loot box that he wanted, it's a gain.
If Dave paid $1 for a loot box, and got the same legendary McCree costume drop from the loot box, but he already has that costume, or hates that costume, it's a loss.
If Dave later on down the road finds out he really likes playing as McCree, the loss that was the legendary McCree costume (because he originally hated McCree) is now a gain because he's now playing McCree and using that costume.
The same exact contents from the loot box is entirely dependent on the individual (and their current situation) on how much it's worth to them.
Now here's the same situation, but with money on the line instead of items:
If John paid $1 for a loot box, and gets $500 from the loot box, it's a gain because he now has $500.
If Dave paid $1 for a loot box, and gets $500 from the loot box, it's a gain because he now has $500.
The same exact contents from the loot box dropped for both, and it was an objective, defined, static gain for both in any situation.
Money is objective because it is quantifiable and everyone; citizens, regulators, and legislators can agree on how much it is worth.
Which goes back to another point I made in my original post:
"Comparing loot boxes with traditional gambling is non-sensical. With loot boxes, you always get something in return, and no regulatory governing body can objectively put a monetary value on those items. With traditional gambling, losing all of your real money with a zero sum gain is a possible outcome, and that is an objective loss."
Can you put an objective, static monetary value on the McCree costume drops for John and Dave? For every possible situation that the McCree costume can drop in for every possible player? For every single piece or item that can potentially come out of any loot box in every video game?
"The fact that winning money isn't possible (even though you have put real money on the table), is irrelevant."
But it is extremely relevant. That's the entire legal definition of traditional gambling. You are putting real money on the line with the chances of either losing all that money, gaining some of that money back, or gaining more money than you put in.
The entire current regulation of gambling is entirely based on the fact that real money is gained and lost, not arbitrary items in video games.
Now if a video game actually had a virtual casino in it, where you were actually gambling real money, with the chances of coming out with a zero sum gain, then that's gambling and the ESRB labels it as such.
"Indeed it's even MORE predatory and cynical than a slot machine because you're giving them actual money, and they're giving you only a chance to win something you want that has cost themnothing to produce."
If you think that every piece of loot box item costs developers nothing to produce, then I recommend you research how game development works before we continue this debate.
"In a nutshell: You pay them, and they give you an RNG in return - this is exactly how slot machines work (except lootboxes are never empty so it's supposedly fine - but if that's your argument you could make slot machines work the same way, always giving some sort of valueless drop)."
No, this isn't how slot machines work.
Slot machines give you payout tokens that are exchanged for a static monetary exchange rate at the counter. You exchange those tokens for real money, and those tokens have an objective, defined, static monetary value.
No slot machine in any casino gives someone some sort of valueless drop. Again, this is not a plausible hypothetical and doesn't exist in the real world.
I wouldn't mind discussing this further. But please inform yourself on the legislations and regulations surrounding traditional gambling. Or how gambling protocols actually work in real casinos.
When it comes between trusting conglomerate telecommunication companies, and the federal government, it's best to trust the government in this matter.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution makes it illegal for the government to block freedom of speech.
The government (the FCC) is beholden to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. This means with Title II Net Neutrality, the FCC cannot legally block or favor one type of data over another. Because under Title II the Internet is a government utility, which makes it unconstitutional and illegal if the FCC allows certain Internet connections to be throttled or blocked. They must treat all information equally on a level playing field.
Now because Net Neutrality is repealed, the Internet is handed back over to Internet service providers. Keep in mind that the First Amendment only restricts the powers of the federal government. The First Amendment does not apply to private companies and individuals.
That means with the repeal of Net Neutrality, ISPs have free reign to throttle, block, or create paid prioritization, because ISPs are not beholden to the First Amendment.
If you think ISPs have never abused their position, here are some examples of ISPs violating Net Neutrality:
AT&T fined $100 million from the FCC for throttling their Unlimited Data plan (Net Neutrality also covers wireless data): https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/17/8796575/att-fined-100-million-fcc-misleading-unlimited-data-throttling
AT&T faced the same lawsuit from the FTC: https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/1/8325645/att-must-face-ftc-unlimited-data-lawsuit
Verizon admitted to throttling Netflix and other streaming video: https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/16010766/verizon-netflix-throttling-statement-net-neutrality-title-ii
Netflix had to create its own speedtest tool, because ISPs were fast-laning Speedtest servers, while still throttling connections: https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/9/12415740/netflix-fast-speed-test-ios-android-launch
"There's good reason to pick Fast over other speed tests, too. Service providers are well aware of certain popular testing sites, and they can optimize their network to perform better on those specific tests. That means the results you get could be inflated beyond what you're getting in day-to-day use. Fast, on the other hand, measures your connection to Netflix's servers. And while internet providers may well optimize for that, that's still going to be useful to a lot of people."
Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile had a mobile wallet app called ISIS. Verizon blocked Google Wallet on their devices, which is a competitior: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm
Verizon blocked text messages from a pro-choice organization: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7x9e59/losing-net-neutrality-could-cripple-abortion-rights
Comcast was fined $16 million in a class-action lawsuit after they were caught throttling peer-to-peer connections: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/12/comcast-throws-16-million-at-p2p-throttling-settlement/
Ajit Pai has claimed that the FTC would continue to pursue litigation if Net Neutrality ethics are violated, but that is untrue.
The FTC only protects consumers from deception from ISPs. Ajit Pai himself stated that the FTC would have no authority over ISPs because ISPs would be transparent about their practices. Which means ISPs can throttle, block, and charge for paid prioritization legally, as long as they make that known to the consumer. If your only options are horrible Internet plans due to repealing Net Neutrality, there would be nothing the FTC can do, as long as service providers tell you how horrible those plans are beforehand.
Net Neutrality isn't just about Internet data, it's also about consumer privacy. The common carrier exemption makes most ISPs immune from suits from the FTC because those ISPs also provide telephone service. Quote from the Verge:
"…Because of a recent decision from a Federal Appeals Court in California, the FTC can’t prohibit the vast majority of ISPs from sharing or selling your personal information at all. That decision says that if a company provides a common carrier service, the FTC cannot enforce its laws against any of its services, even if they are non-common carrier services like video or online news. So ISPs that also provide mobile or fixed telephone service — which is pretty much all of them — would be completely exempt from FTC oversight."
There are already cases of the FTC having no jurisdiction over ISPs.
"The 9th Circuit determination that the common carrier exemption is status-based has serious implications for regulatory authority in the common carrier space – and beyond. ... Therefore, the ruling potentially creates a lacuna, a regulatory gap or loophole, where neither the FTC nor FCC can regulate a company."
And if you think that Title II Net Neutrality was stifling innovation, that's also false.
Starting in 1991, the federal government made a deal with several companies, who eventually turned into Verizon, AT&T, and CenturyLink. That deal allowed Verizon, AT&T, and CenturyLink to take out a tax on Americans to lay down fiber optic cables throughout the US. The promise was that those companies would have at least 30% of the US be fiber-ready by the year 2000. It's now 2017, telecom companies have taxed Americans over $400 billion USD, and the US is stagnating at 8% fiber penetration. Americans are still paying for something they never got:
Here are 2 news reports from 2005-2006, when the debt to Americans from this plan was only $200 billion: http://muniwireless.com/2006/01/31/the-200-billion-broadband-scandal-aka-wheres-the-45mb-s-i-already-paid-for/
http://newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
This would've been the most competitive plan for the Internet the government has come up with.
Details from that plan:
Starting in 1990s, (though it varies by state), this copper wire was supposed to be replaced with a fiber optic wire, which would allow for new innovative services, not to mention cable TV and video. And it was always supposed to be an upgrade of the state-based utility known as the “PSTN”, the “Public Switched Telephone Networks”.
It was also supposed to be open to all manner of competition. You, the customer, would choose who offered you Internet, cable, broadband and even phone service over that wire.
Yet Verizon, AT&T, and CenturyLink have completed none of their promised goals. But continue to quietly tax Americans for it.
TuxedoCruise's comments