Doing something for the sake of doing something is often enough the only course of action that can solve a problem. But more often it is not, and legal matters usually belong in this second group.
I have to disagree with that. "Doing something for the sake of doing something" is almost never a solution for anything and when it is, it's only by sheer dumb luck. Usually it makes things worse and/or creates new problems to go with the one they tried to solve.
Like this thing...are germans not going to have easter eggs this year, because it's "gambling?"
The quote was by me, not sophlogimo. And yes, you are correct that it will fail more often than not, with "often enough" I wanted to say that you will get gazillions of people telling you how they were in a situation where they actually had to do something (in one minute the car will explode situations) and it worked. Usually we never get told of the people who tried something and failed. So basically I was toning it down for the sake of the argument and agree with you.
As for the latter part: easter eggs don't have a random element in Germany, they're just chocolate with or without filling (but it will tell you on the packaging when you buy it). Unless you mean Kinder eggs, which despite their form aren't as much associated with easter as they may be elsewhere.
And, as has already been said, the "you don't get the toy you wanted" aspect has some crucial differences. First the chocolate as a guaranteed "win" plus the "unwanted toy" compare way more favorably than winning a Vonph or not. Second, the overall amount of money spent and "risked" is not comparable to what some players do in online games.
Your reductio ad absurdum doesn't work here. Some things would be absurd to consider gambling. Some things are clearly gambling. The exact point where it changes is blurry, but comparing standard online gaming lockboxes to either end doesn't help your case neither for nor against.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
Which was the same for me, the only boxes I opened were to collect lobi for my boffs I wanted from the store.
But you are incorrect that some (maybe even many) people opening boxes for the lobi alone will invalidate the other claim. First, you can calculate the "guaranteed value" by seeing what lobi items are going for with the "potential value" of things they can win. That would not look too nice, but isn't really the point.
The point is: some DO open boxes for the odds of a VR ship, without understanding how long their odds are, how much money they will spend, and those cannot restrain themselves. Especially when they are children they may not even understand the value of the money they spend properly. And this is what this is mostly about: if Cryptic could guarantee that children don't participate (to the degree that is possible, nobody can stop parents from sitting behind them and allowing everything), this would be way less of an issue.
Also, consumer protection laws, as many others like speed limits and so on, aren't made for the most able, who will do their research, exactly understand odds, know what the "participation trophies" will be and whether they'd be worth it alone and so on. Protective laws are designed to protect the less able, less smart, less aware. Especially from those who actively try to take advantage of them. I do think that STO looks good in the latter regard, it is however doubtful that this holds for all games, especially casual games on mobile.
But in the end this is again a sliding scale. You cannot invalidate a "some do, so it is an issue" with a "some do not, so it isn't". And consumer protection agencies, at least in Europe, I gather it is different in the US, tend to err on the "protective" side. But in the end I guess the most likely outcome will be that some rules may be set up for gambling elements which STO may even fulfill right now so it wouldn't be an issue here. But it may as well be that some things have to be done, and then the question will be "is it worth it?".
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
There is one issue that no one has addressed yet, I believe. The scientists from the University of Hamburg derived it being gambling not from chance, or whether you get lobi or whatever, but from the companies' income patterns.
That means as long as it is luck-based and contributed very significantly, it will fall under that definition - and likely that's what the auhtorities will use to determine if it's gambling or not.
Doesn't matter what any university study says. The government(s) will use whatever their legal definition of gambling is.
As has been pointed out: not in this case. The government doesn't have any say in this at all. There are government independent agencies at work here, and they work with the laws that have already been laid out. They read the study and have now to decide whether this is new evidence to change the categorization. If they do say "yes", it will be done, no matter what any government says. (Courts may overrule them).
The only thing a government could do is to change the law to make the issue clear. That most likely will not happen here. Not least because Germany won't have a government for another couple weaks at least.
But it needs to be understood that this is not some discussion about new laws or suchlike, but application of existing ones.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
Let's keep it civil folks. Having passion about one's points is fine but let's not get too far off the rails
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
Generally I'd agree. But German laws don't in all cases. Assuming that a 100% supervision is not possible, hidden costs on at first glance "clean and good" sites are regularily considered invalid and payments were ordered to be repaid. That's why I said in an earlier post that clearly advertising the boxes as "gambling" may even be advantageous to calling them "Lobi Cereal".
And it actually is down to Cryptic/PWE or other companies, at least to many European laws, to prohibit minors "accidentally" being able to do adult stuff. Just saying "it is the parents' responsibility alone" is not cutting it. Unless they exhibit what is called "grobe Fahrlässigkeit" (gross negligence) transactions of minors are completely invalid as an example (which could easily open another can of worms here, so let's stop it).
In the end it doesn't matter though what you think would be responsibility for consequences, or what I think, but what this agency (and maybe later judges) makes out of existing laws concerning it.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
ESRB and PEGI ratings are more of a guideline and carry less weight than the equivalent movie ratings at the moment.
Some games in the UK do go through the BBFC certification which is more concrete and retailers can get slapped wrists for selling those to a minor. Of course shops can't really do anything about the parent who buys it for their child other than mention at point of sale.
Sometimes it will be a case of new laws need to be put down but more often its a case of having to look at existing laws and seeing how they translate to things that simply weren't around at the time of writing.
And it actually is down to Cryptic/PWE or other companies, at least to many European laws, to prohibit minors "accidentally" being able to do adult stuff.
That's what things like ESRB ratings and such are for.
In German, the relevant authority would be the USK. You have your game rated by them, they tell you what age it is appropriate for, and you need to ensure somehow that only people of appropriate age can acquire it (well, within certain reason.)
This would at least help Cryptic if they used platforms that support this, like the Microsoft Store. Not sure if providing this on a website would in generally be considered sufficient.
Theoretically, Cryptic or PWE could implement such a filter also in Arc.
Maybe.
I think the law is probably not be quite clear on this particular interpretation,and I would expect that it will take time until everything is solved.
Keep in mind however that fundamentally, media with age ratings already exist, so it should not be an unsolvable issue.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I doubt they’ll call it gambling since one can buy everything in a lockbox on the exchange (yes can be very expensive). However, one could say that your gambling for a lower price.
Thats not the problem. The problem of gambling is, people who gamble as regular basis are weak on the mind, and they easily fall for it and they easily fall into the addiction, and any addiction can cause real problems. Now, strong people wont, and they probably will buy just a couple of boxes and thats it. But people who actually gamble, like in real life, they will not have the ability to separate a videogame from the real life.
In my opinion gambling in STO is exactly the same as gambling in the real life, because it can destroy lifes and ruin lifes. Now, the biggest problem here is, the community of STO is composed in so majority for kids, and that money come from their parents.. in most cases, and its even worst.
I wouldn't be certain of that. Just because you see so many childish posts on game forums doesn't mean these people are really children. Your standards for adult behavior might just not be based on actual adult behaviour.
I certainly am not, and I can't see many children or teenagers capable of spending that much money on a computer game. But of course, my time as a kid or teenager is bascially 19+ years away.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
A scape goat, is someone who is wrongly given the blame for something they haven't done. This entire issue of LockBoxes, was brought up by some dude in Hawaii. It's been brought to Global attention, and it will now have Global Impacts. Do you no understand that. You clearly don't understand what 'recuse' means, or you wouldn't have directed a comment to me, demanding that I make a response.
I am using the term correctly because you are blaming him for the potential legislation on the issue of lootboxes in Germany. As I have pointed out to you, the German Youth Protection Commission is using a study conducted by the University of Hamburg on the increase of lootboxes present in recent games. Do you know the geographic location of Hamburg?
The issue with lootboxes was brought to public attention when EA instituted a predatory lootbox system in Star Wars: Battlefront 2 which is heavily integrated into the progression system. That caused an uproar in the gaming community; specifically those people who wanted to play that game. A lot of players complained about the progression system in that game. Many gaming media outlets published articles about the debacle. There are evengaming Youtubers with millions of subscribers that made many videos about it; a lot of them are angry videos. That snowballed to the point where major media outlets like CNN, CNBC and Forbes started to cover the story about Star Wars Battlefront 2 and lootboxes in games. It is at this point where countries like Australia and the UK started to look into lootboxes and Christopher Lee made his first public statement regarding lootboxes.
It doesn't matter who started it What matters, is that the EU are interested in the situation, the EU are discussing the situation, and could potentially come to a decision, which, based on things as they stand, could make this game cease to exist! So no, I am not 'making him a scapegoat'...
If it doesn't matter who started it, then why did you blame Christopher Lee in the first place? The fact that you are blaming Christopher Lee for all of this means you making him a scapegoat. So in essence you are blatantly contradicting yourself.
I pointed out the potentially massive impacts of this issue as a global whole and made a suggestion for how it could potentially be remedied. Which is more than you have done! All you have done, is made snarky comments, and been dismissive.
Nope. I have provided you with the reason why Christopher Lee is taking a stance on lootboxes in games. I have also pointed out to you (for the 3rd time now) that Germany is using the study conducted by the University of Hamburg to make their decision on the issue of lootboxes in games.
But as has been already made very clear, Cryptic won't listen to me, and so I have better things to do than wasting my time arguing
Perhaps that is for the best. You seem to be overly emotional to the point of being distraught.
And it actually is down to Cryptic/PWE or other companies, at least to many European laws, to prohibit minors "accidentally" being able to do adult stuff.
That's what things like ESRB ratings and such are for.
Ratings are only part of the equation though. It has to made sure that these are followed. That retailers don't sell R rated movies to 14 year olds as an example. Now, the studios don't really have a say in that, but Cryptic/PWE does control the access to the game themselves, so this burden may fall quickly on them.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
This is a STO forum - yet seeing this thread, it's the nBSG mantra running through my head. "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again..."
Seriously, I had to double-check the dates to make sure this wasn't a necro from a few months ago. Somebody's clutching their pearls again, and it'll almost certainly come to as much as it did last time - that is to say, nothing - but the whole deal will be overblown by folks who just hate the lockboxes here. (Hint: nobody makes you open them, folks, and the stuff inside doesn't make you any better at the game. It's just fluff.)
Ratings are only part of the equation though. It has to made sure that these are followed. That retailers don't sell R rated movies to 14 year olds as an example. Now, the studios don't really have a say in that, but Cryptic/PWE does control the access to the game themselves, so this burden may fall quickly on them.
Good luck trying to police the age of people accessing a F2P game.
For Germany it may work, or at least in a way where Cryptic may put the blame on parents, with the aforementioned POSTIDENT or similar. Though that would be quite a hassle to set up.
And if it doesn't work: welcome to the problem. If you cannot guarantee access checks like this, you may not be able to continue your service.
Don't forget that the Germans in this thread, me included, are not trying to advocate a ban on lockboxes, we are trying to explain what is happening here.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
That **** in Hawaii that started this nonsense, potentially has a lot to answer for
What do you expect? It's easier to blame someone else than blame yourself!...it's Cryptics...or EAs...or Biowares...or Blizzards...or Hi Rezs fault you emptied your bank account going for that grand prize...not your own.
This would work great making the enormous assumption everyone is truthful. What is to stop someone below 13 from lying about their birth date and gaining access?
Nothing of course. This approach ("enter your birthdate" or similarily "I assure that I am above 18 years old" (or whatever the respective limit)) therefore unfortunately has already been deemed insufficient by German courts.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
Not at all. I look forward to reading up on how exactly Germany will verify the age of players with 100% certainty.
And people say America is the land of overly intrusive government.
About the latter: if you compare the US to Germany or other European states, the latter surely are "nanny states" in many regards. And you could call its governments more intrusive because indeed you do for example less rights to do as you like if it affects others negatively. So people complaining about the US government being overly intrusive indeed better not move to Europe. (Or Canada, as many like to tweet when they're unhappy with some development.)
About the former: It's Cryptic's problem to solve, not Germany's. If Cryptic cannot comply to German regulations it just will have to cease operations there. (But: this will not necessarily be the case). Germany would just go on.
But as has been said, systems are actually already in place over here (100% is unreachable, but they're deemed good enough). It would only arguably be quite inconvenient for Cryptic to put these into place. Especially if other countries followed and they'd have to do it differently for every place.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
I find that most of the governments of the world go after gambling because of puritanical reasons or tax reasons, or both (see the US). In theory if PWE or whatever gave a portion of the proceeds to the government in question in the form of taxes, that legislation would disappear unless it is nanny based or puritanical based, in which case, there's frankly nothing Cryptic can do.
Comments
The quote was by me, not sophlogimo. And yes, you are correct that it will fail more often than not, with "often enough" I wanted to say that you will get gazillions of people telling you how they were in a situation where they actually had to do something (in one minute the car will explode situations) and it worked. Usually we never get told of the people who tried something and failed. So basically I was toning it down for the sake of the argument and agree with you.
As for the latter part: easter eggs don't have a random element in Germany, they're just chocolate with or without filling (but it will tell you on the packaging when you buy it). Unless you mean Kinder eggs, which despite their form aren't as much associated with easter as they may be elsewhere.
And, as has already been said, the "you don't get the toy you wanted" aspect has some crucial differences. First the chocolate as a guaranteed "win" plus the "unwanted toy" compare way more favorably than winning a Vonph or not. Second, the overall amount of money spent and "risked" is not comparable to what some players do in online games.
Your reductio ad absurdum doesn't work here. Some things would be absurd to consider gambling. Some things are clearly gambling. The exact point where it changes is blurry, but comparing standard online gaming lockboxes to either end doesn't help your case neither for nor against.
But you are incorrect that some (maybe even many) people opening boxes for the lobi alone will invalidate the other claim. First, you can calculate the "guaranteed value" by seeing what lobi items are going for with the "potential value" of things they can win. That would not look too nice, but isn't really the point.
The point is: some DO open boxes for the odds of a VR ship, without understanding how long their odds are, how much money they will spend, and those cannot restrain themselves. Especially when they are children they may not even understand the value of the money they spend properly. And this is what this is mostly about: if Cryptic could guarantee that children don't participate (to the degree that is possible, nobody can stop parents from sitting behind them and allowing everything), this would be way less of an issue.
Also, consumer protection laws, as many others like speed limits and so on, aren't made for the most able, who will do their research, exactly understand odds, know what the "participation trophies" will be and whether they'd be worth it alone and so on. Protective laws are designed to protect the less able, less smart, less aware. Especially from those who actively try to take advantage of them. I do think that STO looks good in the latter regard, it is however doubtful that this holds for all games, especially casual games on mobile.
But in the end this is again a sliding scale. You cannot invalidate a "some do, so it is an issue" with a "some do not, so it isn't". And consumer protection agencies, at least in Europe, I gather it is different in the US, tend to err on the "protective" side. But in the end I guess the most likely outcome will be that some rules may be set up for gambling elements which STO may even fulfill right now so it wouldn't be an issue here. But it may as well be that some things have to be done, and then the question will be "is it worth it?".
As has been pointed out: not in this case. The government doesn't have any say in this at all. There are government independent agencies at work here, and they work with the laws that have already been laid out. They read the study and have now to decide whether this is new evidence to change the categorization. If they do say "yes", it will be done, no matter what any government says. (Courts may overrule them).
The only thing a government could do is to change the law to make the issue clear. That most likely will not happen here. Not least because Germany won't have a government for another couple weaks at least.
But it needs to be understood that this is not some discussion about new laws or suchlike, but application of existing ones.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
And it actually is down to Cryptic/PWE or other companies, at least to many European laws, to prohibit minors "accidentally" being able to do adult stuff. Just saying "it is the parents' responsibility alone" is not cutting it. Unless they exhibit what is called "grobe Fahrlässigkeit" (gross negligence) transactions of minors are completely invalid as an example (which could easily open another can of worms here, so let's stop it).
In the end it doesn't matter though what you think would be responsibility for consequences, or what I think, but what this agency (and maybe later judges) makes out of existing laws concerning it.
Some games in the UK do go through the BBFC certification which is more concrete and retailers can get slapped wrists for selling those to a minor. Of course shops can't really do anything about the parent who buys it for their child other than mention at point of sale.
Sometimes it will be a case of new laws need to be put down but more often its a case of having to look at existing laws and seeing how they translate to things that simply weren't around at the time of writing.
In German, the relevant authority would be the USK. You have your game rated by them, they tell you what age it is appropriate for, and you need to ensure somehow that only people of appropriate age can acquire it (well, within certain reason.)
There is apparently an xml based youth protection standard that youth protection software/filters can read to http://www.usk.de/extramenue/login/publisher/weitere-leistungen/labelgenerator/.
This would at least help Cryptic if they used platforms that support this, like the Microsoft Store. Not sure if providing this on a website would in generally be considered sufficient.
Theoretically, Cryptic or PWE could implement such a filter also in Arc.
Maybe.
I think the law is probably not be quite clear on this particular interpretation,and I would expect that it will take time until everything is solved.
Keep in mind however that fundamentally, media with age ratings already exist, so it should not be an unsolvable issue.
I certainly am not, and I can't see many children or teenagers capable of spending that much money on a computer game. But of course, my time as a kid or teenager is bascially 19+ years away.
I imagine they would be. Still wouldn't change how I feel though given the state of the game itself.
I am using the term correctly because you are blaming him for the potential legislation on the issue of lootboxes in Germany. As I have pointed out to you, the German Youth Protection Commission is using a study conducted by the University of Hamburg on the increase of lootboxes present in recent games. Do you know the geographic location of Hamburg?
The issue with lootboxes was brought to public attention when EA instituted a predatory lootbox system in Star Wars: Battlefront 2 which is heavily integrated into the progression system. That caused an uproar in the gaming community; specifically those people who wanted to play that game. A lot of players complained about the progression system in that game. Many gaming media outlets published articles about the debacle. There are evengaming Youtubers with millions of subscribers that made many videos about it; a lot of them are angry videos. That snowballed to the point where major media outlets like CNN, CNBC and Forbes started to cover the story about Star Wars Battlefront 2 and lootboxes in games. It is at this point where countries like Australia and the UK started to look into lootboxes and Christopher Lee made his first public statement regarding lootboxes.
If it doesn't matter who started it, then why did you blame Christopher Lee in the first place? The fact that you are blaming Christopher Lee for all of this means you making him a scapegoat. So in essence you are blatantly contradicting yourself.
Nope. I have provided you with the reason why Christopher Lee is taking a stance on lootboxes in games. I have also pointed out to you (for the 3rd time now) that Germany is using the study conducted by the University of Hamburg to make their decision on the issue of lootboxes in games.
Perhaps that is for the best. You seem to be overly emotional to the point of being distraught.
Ratings are only part of the equation though. It has to made sure that these are followed. That retailers don't sell R rated movies to 14 year olds as an example. Now, the studios don't really have a say in that, but Cryptic/PWE does control the access to the game themselves, so this burden may fall quickly on them.
Seriously, I had to double-check the dates to make sure this wasn't a necro from a few months ago. Somebody's clutching their pearls again, and it'll almost certainly come to as much as it did last time - that is to say, nothing - but the whole deal will be overblown by folks who just hate the lockboxes here. (Hint: nobody makes you open them, folks, and the stuff inside doesn't make you any better at the game. It's just fluff.)
For Germany it may work, or at least in a way where Cryptic may put the blame on parents, with the aforementioned POSTIDENT or similar. Though that would be quite a hassle to set up.
And if it doesn't work: welcome to the problem. If you cannot guarantee access checks like this, you may not be able to continue your service.
Don't forget that the Germans in this thread, me included, are not trying to advocate a ban on lockboxes, we are trying to explain what is happening here.
What do you expect? It's easier to blame someone else than blame yourself!...it's Cryptics...or EAs...or Biowares...or Blizzards...or Hi Rezs fault you emptied your bank account going for that grand prize...not your own.
Nothing of course. This approach ("enter your birthdate" or similarily "I assure that I am above 18 years old" (or whatever the respective limit)) therefore unfortunately has already been deemed insufficient by German courts.
About the latter: if you compare the US to Germany or other European states, the latter surely are "nanny states" in many regards. And you could call its governments more intrusive because indeed you do for example less rights to do as you like if it affects others negatively. So people complaining about the US government being overly intrusive indeed better not move to Europe. (Or Canada, as many like to tweet when they're unhappy with some development.)
About the former: It's Cryptic's problem to solve, not Germany's. If Cryptic cannot comply to German regulations it just will have to cease operations there. (But: this will not necessarily be the case). Germany would just go on.
But as has been said, systems are actually already in place over here (100% is unreachable, but they're deemed good enough). It would only arguably be quite inconvenient for Cryptic to put these into place. Especially if other countries followed and they'd have to do it differently for every place.