test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
This is interesting
soulforger
Posts: 1,654 Arc User
Today, on the 8th, a Senator in the US has introduced a Bill, that if passed, would make "loot boxes", "pay-2-win", and other such things banned from games that are either aimed at children, or, are aimed at a wider range of players, yet, let children par-take in micro-transactions.
Btw, before a certain someone (or others that think this way) comes and says "Lock boxes are not loot boxes!" With how the Bill words it, they would be considered to fall under this rule. As it is being aimed at micro-transactions that offer random or partially random rewards to players. And yes, due to the fact that keys are bought using currency normally bought with real money, CO/STO/NWO's boxes would fall under this ruling.
Now, the bill is truly aimed more at games that are aimed at children, yet, allows for targeting games that are aimed at a more general player base. For the most part, games that are designed 100% for Adults (doesn't mean games that are just labeled M for mature mind you, but, games TRULY aimed at adults, games with excessive amounts of swearing, gore, nudity/sex, etc), will not be affected by this bill.
Companies of games that are affected by this bill would be treated as if performing "unfair trade practices".
All the bill would even authorize State Attorney Generals to file suits on behalf of the residents of their states.
But, of course, this is only going to happen if the Bill passes.
With that possibility in mind, what would Cryptic/PWI have to do to not get in trouble? How badly would this game be affected? What do you think the chances are of the bill passing?
Mind you, I am not asking to debate if lock boxes are or are not gambling, that is not the actual purpose of the Bill, it isn't there to punish gambling, but, rather, randomly rewarded micro-transactions and pay-2-win stuff in games either aimed for kids, or for wider groups of players, so, whether or not they are gambling, is a moot point for this bill.
Btw, before a certain someone (or others that think this way) comes and says "Lock boxes are not loot boxes!" With how the Bill words it, they would be considered to fall under this rule. As it is being aimed at micro-transactions that offer random or partially random rewards to players. And yes, due to the fact that keys are bought using currency normally bought with real money, CO/STO/NWO's boxes would fall under this ruling.
Now, the bill is truly aimed more at games that are aimed at children, yet, allows for targeting games that are aimed at a more general player base. For the most part, games that are designed 100% for Adults (doesn't mean games that are just labeled M for mature mind you, but, games TRULY aimed at adults, games with excessive amounts of swearing, gore, nudity/sex, etc), will not be affected by this bill.
Companies of games that are affected by this bill would be treated as if performing "unfair trade practices".
All the bill would even authorize State Attorney Generals to file suits on behalf of the residents of their states.
But, of course, this is only going to happen if the Bill passes.
With that possibility in mind, what would Cryptic/PWI have to do to not get in trouble? How badly would this game be affected? What do you think the chances are of the bill passing?
Mind you, I am not asking to debate if lock boxes are or are not gambling, that is not the actual purpose of the Bill, it isn't there to punish gambling, but, rather, randomly rewarded micro-transactions and pay-2-win stuff in games either aimed for kids, or for wider groups of players, so, whether or not they are gambling, is a moot point for this bill.
0
Comments
Nepht and Dr Deflecto on primus
They all thought I was out of the game....But I'm holding all the lockboxes now..
I'll......FOAM FINGER YOUR BACK!
Or even better: No more video games for kids, universal law that bans kids from playing video games. They don't appreciate em, and they can entertain themselves by eating dirt so they don't need em anyway. Ban the squeekers! \o/
Or I dunno.. probably nothing. I'm sure a bunch of salty CoXers will make a big stink and demand somebody come after CO, but I doubt any state attorney general would be interested. They'd be too busy going after Overporn and Star Wars Bumblestump.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
PARSER USAGE GUIDE: click here for an easy how-to ٩(๑･ิᴗ･ิ)۶٩(･ิᴗ･ิ๑)۶
Spectre beats Eido in an SG run: VIDEO HERE
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
What happens long term is going to depend on whether the bill passes into law and if it does, what the actual text ends up being. Also note that if you're not old enough to vote you're a minor in the eyes of the law, 17 years old is still a minor when talking law. Since Champions Online is not rated Adults Only it is considered to be marketed towards minors and could potentially fall foul of whatever this law ends up looking like.
And playing by myself since Aug 2009
Godtier: Lifetime Subscriber
What argument can be made for lockbox vehicles?
They aren't any better than non-lockbox vehicles. No one said that a game couldn't sell items directly, so the vehicles in the C-store, never mind the vehicles available through playing events, eliminate any lockbox vehicle considerations.
Or does the bill also say that loot boxes can not offer unique appearances?
What legion gear used to be is irrelevant. Is it the best gear now? No? Then it doesn't matter.
And in the end? I was thinking the same thing Lezard said; Just add an NPC smoking and/or drinking, add a minor curse word here or there, maybe even add a scantily clad NPCs to certain areas saying things like "looking for a good time, hero?", and change the rating of the game.
And anyway, what Senator? What bill? Source?
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
That is something I believe will also happen. But, current games that are Rated T or lower, would most likely be affected.
The system would include games that are 13+, for those games are rated T. The only games that would not be looked at (for the most part, unless it is proven a large number of kids play the game) are the ones rated M.
So, that wouldn't work.
I'd like to agree, but, CO is not rated M. So, it would fall under the affects of the Bill.
Early or not, one should always be ready for anything, not being prepared is the worst thing you can do. And, yes, if I was not clear on what the bill was doing, that was what I was trying to say the bill was doing. CO, is not an adult only game, thus, kids do play in it. Is there lots of kids? I doubt it. But, even so, they either exist in small numbers, or have.
Not what I seen from the bill personally myself. You might be thinking of an older one, for I know from older arguments in the past years, that is what they were saying. Would like to know where you got that info from. I got my info from the senator himself. Also, that part is the part the cover for the pay-2-win. The bill goes after two things. General random rewards and pay-2-win stuff. So, not sure where you got your info from. Please share on that point.
PG is still suited for and aimed at general age groups, thus would still fall under the Bill.
Correct. Still though, I want to see where he got his info.
Better to be a concerned Silly Billy than to find your ship sinking in the middle of the ocean with no life boats to save you. Better to be prepared with a plan.
Did I not put the bill's name before? Well, if not, the bill is called: Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act, The Senator is Josh Hawley, (R-MO). Don't let the name fool. The bill would affect any game not rated M (meaning, CO would be affected). Also, don't let his video fool you either, for I think that is where someone got the idea of what the bill is doing from, despite the fact there is more to the bill, and his video was only talking about a small portion of it.
And no, Lezard's idea wouldn't work, to small. Maybe yours would, because you branched out on it more. But, I don't think such NPCs would be added.
In my opinion, they should have always just sold the stuff in lock-boxes directly. But, they make more money this way.
Also, if the issue is kids buying stuff in video games, why the focus on lootboxes? Hell if your kid gets a hold of your credit card they could probably bankrupt you in any game with micro-transactions. Maybe what the law should say is "video games targeted at kids or that have general audiences aren't allowed to have micro-transactions at all". Why the focus on gambleboxes? Are lawmakers under the impression that kids will make stupid spending decisions only if gambling is involved?
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters