What he's getting at is that writing laws to prevent things that aren't the government's responsibility is dumb and wasteful. Another example is writing a law the automakers need to ensure that underage/untrained individuals don't operate heavy machinery...
LOL. Because that is precisely what governments already do: they don't let underaged kids drive cars. Nor allow them to operate heavy machinery. Or drink alcohol below the age of 21. Or visit p*rn sites. Or have sex under the age of 17 even.
Whether governments are particularly effective in enforcing these type of things is another matter. But governments are, IMHO, entirely justified in trying to protect children.
You seemed to have missed the point I was making. There's a big difference between telling people they're not allowed to do something and trying to physically stop them.
What he's getting at is that writing laws to prevent things that aren't the government's responsibility is dumb and wasteful. Another example is writing a law the automakers need to ensure that underage/untrained individuals don't operate heavy machinery...
LOL. Because that is precisely what governments already do: they don't let underaged kids drive cars. Nor allow them to operate heavy machinery. Or drink alcohol below the age of 21. Or visit p*rn sites. Or have sex under the age of 17 even.
Whether governments are particularly effective in enforcing these type of things is another matter. But governments are, IMHO, entirely justified in trying to protect children.
You seemed to have missed the point I was making. There's a big difference between telling people they're not allowed to do something and trying to physically stop them.
No, I understood you. But having a law, in most cases, means you don't *have* to enforce. Sure, there will always be kids with fake ID's getting into bars, but it still helps to have a law prohibiting it (as a deterrent for when you get caught; and simply as an added threshold).
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).
Cryptic/PWE would be required to set up reasonable safeguards against underaged children gaining access to the gambling system of the game. Reasonable, not absolute (aka, not like the weak age-verification of STEAM, letting you just type in your birthday before seeing an R-rated vid, but something stronger). Probably something along the lines of sending them a photostat of your ID (or a selfie, with you holding up your ID).
Frankly, concept of a game asking players to send them a selfie with their ID, just to access content seems pretty ridiculous. Not saying I'm 100% sure they wouldn't implement it, but I'm not sure anyone would send them that selfie just to be able to gamble.
This also begs the question: whose laws is Cryptic going to follow when asking for age verification? Local laws of the player? US laws, where Cryptic is located? Chinese laws where PWE HQ are? Knowing how the gambling age can vary a lot (for example in Estonia it's only 16, meanwhile I think there are plenty of places where it's 21), this can create problems.
Realistically though, I don't see anything happening. Cryptic's/PWE's lawers can just state their boxes are not gambling as players always get *something* and that's it. We, players, can argue whether it's moral or whether it's *technically* gambling, but in the eyes of law I would guess they're pretty clean.
P.S. Wow, is the age of consent, as well as the age to consume alcohol really that high in the Netherlands (17 and 21 respectively)?
What he's getting at is that writing laws to prevent things that aren't the government's responsibility is dumb and wasteful. Another example is writing a law the automakers need to ensure that underage/untrained individuals don't operate heavy machinery...
LOL. Because that is precisely what governments already do: they don't let underaged kids drive cars. Nor allow them to operate heavy machinery. Or drink alcohol below the age of 21. Or visit p*rn sites. Or have sex under the age of 17 even.
Whether governments are particularly effective in enforcing these type of things is another matter. But governments are, IMHO, entirely justified in trying to protect children.
You seemed to have missed the point I was making. There's a big difference between telling people they're not allowed to do something and trying to physically stop them.
No, I understood you. But having a law, in most cases, means you don't *have* to enforce. Sure, there will always be kids with fake ID's getting into bars, but it still helps to have a law prohibiting it (as a deterrent for when you get caught; and simply as an added threshold).
the actual point of underage drinking laws isn't really to prevent them from drinking. It's to make it punishable under law. The "what if kids steal a CC to pay for stuff?" is already covered under existing laws.
This also begs the question: whose laws is Cryptic going to follow when asking for age verification? Local laws of the player? US laws, where Cryptic is located? Chinese laws where PWE HQ are?
That would always be the law of the EU state they're doing business in. So, German law for Germany, Dutch law for the Netherlands, etc. Or EU law, when such EU law came to pass.
We, players, can argue whether it's moral or whether it's *technically* gambling, but in the eyes of law I would guess they're pretty clean.
Well, that's precisely what's currently in question. They *were* Scot free before, but now it would appear European lawmakers are leaning towards calling it gambling, after all.
P.S. Wow, is the age of consent, as well as the age to consume alcohol really that high in the Netherlands (17 and 21 respectively)?
I was using USA examples. Here, the age of consent is 16, and 18 for drinking. The former nobody cares about, really. Technically, everyone who has sex with a minor (older than 12, but younger than 16) commits 'statutory r*pe', even if he or she willingly engaged in the act. This, as far as I know, has never gone to trial for children having sex amongst themselves (but would certainly be prosecuted for, say, a teacher and a minor). The drinking age is pretty strictly adhered to, since the last few years, with hefty fines for those who serve alcohol to minors.
Frankly, concept of a game asking players to send them a selfie with their ID, just to access content seems pretty ridiculous. Not saying I'm 100% sure they wouldn't implement it, but I'm not sure anyone would send them that selfie just to be able to gamble.
Not saying I'm 100% sure they would implement it, but I can assure you that at least Dutch law would require Cryptic to put far more stringent safeguards in place than just having to type in your birthday.
I don't know whether Germany is the second largest market or not. It might be, it might not be. Either way, Cryptic/PWE will happily go on should whether they do business in Germany or not. As I said, plenty of other countries to do business in and plenty of other markets to grow.
I don't know how you understand MMOs to work, but it is not like Germany is a select country invited to STO and can just be replaced by another. STO is already available in all countries of the world (bar North Korea), and there's no "others to grow" where it isn't already growing. And while I don't know STO's numbers, in F2P MMOs in general Europe (which of course is way more than just Germany, but Germany is a big chunk) is way larger than North America. Losing Germany would put quite a dent into revenue. Losing the whole EU later on could be even more disastrous.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
Uhm, are you implying that there are cultures on Earth where parenting is someone else's responsibility than parents' of the child? Perhaps you should take a small break from consuming sci-fi.
Eh. Having youth protection legislature in place doesn't substitute for parenting, nor does it free parents of their responsibility. Claiming it would is simply false. A parent is ultimately responsible for their children's action.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Simplest, and cheapest, thing for Perfect World to do would be to stop offering Star Trek Online in Germany. If it isn't available in Germany, and Germany is on the list of banned regions, then they needn't worry about any 'gambling' law the German government passes.
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
> @sophlogimo said: > darthmeow504 wrote: » > > Quick question for all those claiming that lootboxes are gambling: Where's the cash out button? [...] > > > > > The German authorities don't care for your personal gambling definition.The one used in Germany does not include a cash-out button, but merely that it is mainly influenced by chance.
This is only partly true. Gambling is defined as a game of chance but that is game theory. Legally, in Germany, gambling requires a monetary wager (not pay out, the pay out just has to be something 'of value' which could be true for in-game items). Since STO doesn't require money to enter the lockbox game (due to the dilithium exchange) it's not gambling.
It should also be noted that protection of minors\players is only a part of the gambling legislation, it's primarily to combat money laundering and criminal organizations.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
...Casinos in Vegas have 'comps' - basically each dollar you gamble, you get x back in points towards free drinks, shows, accomodations, drugs, hookers... the usual Vegas stuff (well, likely not the last two..) Why? As they figured out psychologically if humans lose, they lose the will to play... thus the comp points are a method of 'winning' regardless that keeps them playing
Well no, they do this because they know most people are in control of their faculties and will set limits for themselves. Most all casino patrons will have a set limit of how much they are willing to spend. Once that is gone, they leave.
Your analagy doesn't quite work.
2. The lockbox had a set lobi amount (as yes, we're even gambling on the amount of lobi we recieve)
There is a set minimum that you will receive. If you happen to get more, good for you.
To the first refute... so do sto players - addicts however of casinos or lockboxes...
However you misunderestimate the human drive that is 'x amount of y to get z 'free' ' - you feel good (a lower endorphin rush than the lockbox opening anticipatory rush) when you can buy something with/recieve as a subprize lobi and that erases the negativity of the 'losses' (as nobody wants a piddly 100 fm token), further enticing the purestrings to be loosened
Comps and lobi provide a secondary endorphin rush as it feels like you've won 'something' even when losing - and yes, at the base of it thats why our bodies enjoy gambling... it sends an anticipatory jolt of endorphines, same as if doing a lucky dip at a church fete
Hence why I believe in pure technical terms lobi and casino comps are the same, they both remove the need for the endorphin rush to die the moment you get a bad result, not giving the body time to lose that high before clicking the next key (or in casino terms, just as you get a bad run, a free drink comes along 'courtesy of the house')
Heres an experiment (well, not that you can run it yourself considering you've read the above which introduce bias)
>Have a stack of 10 lockbox keys and a single
Now open the single and regard how you feel after opening it and getting a bad result (ignoring if you win the major prize...if so, lucky devil)
Now the next day, open the ten boxes
Notice how after opening the ten boxes you feel better than opening a single and if you got nothing better than 'common' prizes, you likely thought 'at least I got the lobi?'
Exactly my point.
As to the second... there is a BASE amount, not really a set amount due to odds- when you (hypothetically) lockbox for lobi; one hopes for the highest amount, right? A base amount is not a set amount due to the odds of getting more is greater than recieving the base amount
Who sais daddy allowed it? It is quite possible for gambling addictions to motivate kids into "borrowing" the card without the parents' knowledge.
But again: Irrelevant. The law is the law.
And your laws essentially remove any culpability from where it truly belongs - the parents. Parenting is a 24/7/365 responsibility.
That is a very strange legal argument.
Ownership is also a 24/7/365 responsibility, if you nelgect your property or lose it somewhere, you are culpable. Yet we have laws against thievery or property damage.
Not murdering someone is also a 24/7/365 responsibility, and yet we have laws against murder.
There are also bad parents, people that hurt and physically, mentally or sexually abuse their children, and we have laws against that. There are also bad people, that snatch children and do terrible things to them and we have laws against that, and it is not a sign that we think parents are not responsible for their children.
We don't allow kids to own guns, and yet that doesn't mean that we don't think parents are not responsible for their children.
We decide that gambling is dangerous and hurts the development of children. We therefore have laws to protect them from gambling. That does not in any way imply that parents are not responsible for caring for their children. It just means that we realize that the safety and well-being of a child is not purely in the hands of the parents, but also the society the children grows up in.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Uhm, are you implying that there are cultures on Earth where parenting is someone else's responsibility than parents' of the child? Perhaps you should take a small break from consuming sci-fi.
Yes, he is implying that. There are cultures on earth, quite a few actually, who think it is not only the responsibility of the parents but also of the society as a whole. Not least because society as a whole benefits from there being children. These same cultures also think that 24/7 parenting is not only impossible but also bad for the development of children into self sustaining responsible adults - "helicopter parents" will not allow their kids to grow in the view of these cultures.
That doesn't mean however that kids aren't responsible for what they are doing (up to the degree they would be able to understand the consequences). It also doesn't mean that parents aren't responsible for what their kids are doing. But it means that these cultures think that it helps if during this process we would be limiting dangers, like companies targeting the weak. These cultures think companies have responsibilities, too, about what happens when their products are used.
But I feel that this whole discussion is leading away from the issue at hand, because as sophlogimo has addressed, this culture won't be changed, it is to be taken as a given.
Simplest, and cheapest, thing for Perfect World to do would be to stop offering Star Trek Online in Germany. If it isn't available in Germany, and Germany is on the list of banned regions, then they needn't worry about any 'gambling' law the German government passes.
It is of course true that this is the most simple solution. The question just is: how much of revenue, how much of profit will losing Germany cost them. And how much potential more loss is there when the EU harmonizes in this way. So it may not be the cheapest solution after all.
The whole issue of "different markets with different laws" is not new at all and usually companies opt for adapting. However online gaming is quite different in that you can easily (albeit at a cost) build, say, different engines for different markets to comply with respective standards, while a "one economy in an MMO to suit all regulations worldwide" will be more difficult.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
I don't know whether Germany is the second largest market or not. It might be, it might not be. Either way, Cryptic/PWE will happily go on should whether they do business in Germany or not. As I said, plenty of other countries to do business in and plenty of other markets to grow.
I don't know how you understand MMOs to work, but it is not like Germany is a select country invited to STO and can just be replaced by another. STO is already available in all countries of the world (bar North Korea), and there's no "others to grow" where it isn't already growing. And while I don't know STO's numbers, in F2P MMOs in general Europe (which of course is way more than just Germany, but Germany is a big chunk) is way larger than North America. Losing Germany would put quite a dent into revenue. Losing the whole EU later on could be even more disastrous.
If PWE's beancounters think adding Germany to the list of "disabled regions" is cheaper than complying with draconian legislation, they'll do it without a second thought. I'm not going to speculate on the distribution of PWE's revenue base.
Or they could, I suppose, allow germans to play but block them from opening lockboxes.
I'm also rather confident the rest of Europe have more common sense than this, even if Germany doesn't. Lockbox/item summon systems are just like trading card packs, easter surprise eggs, etc items whose contents you only know after purchase, with "on a computer" added to the end. That only counts as a difference in the patent office.
We decide that gambling is dangerous and hurts the development of children. We therefore have laws to protect them from gambling. That does not in any way imply that parents are not responsible for caring for their children. It just means that we realize that the safety and well-being of a child is not purely in the hands of the parents, but also the society the children grows up in.
I was going to make a lengthy post, saying just that. But why bother? You nailed it.
If PWE's beancounters think adding Germany to the list of "disabled regions" is cheaper than complying with draconian legislation, they'll do it without a second thought. I'm not going to speculate on the distribution of PWE's revenue base.
The first part is obviously correct, though the word "draconian" seems a bit exaggerated. But that is not so much the question as the question about "how much will it cost? Will it affect updates/prices/manpower for STO?" (well, for the others, for Germans obviously the first part is important as well).
I'm also rather confident the rest of Europe have more common sense than this, even if Germany doesn't. Lockbox/item summon systems are just like trading card packs, easter surprise eggs, etc items whose contents you only know after purchase, with "on a computer" added to the end. That only counts as a difference in the patent office.
Apart from the "common sense" part already addressed: it has been stated quite often in this thread, why this may be considered not to be the case. Only seeing your side of the argument without even considering the train of thought of the other side, instead dismissing it wholly as "not common sense" may get you into quite a few unexpected surprises.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
If PWE's beancounters think adding Germany to the list of "disabled regions" is cheaper than complying with draconian legislation, they'll do it without a second thought.
Nah, they won't. Take Microsoft, for instance. The EU has slapped them with legislation many times and/or huge fines (in the hundreds of millions). For example, the EU anti-trust legislation forced them offer other browsers than just their own IE, at the time. And they didn't just stop selling Windows in Europe; because they can't afford to lose that big a market. And they simply complied. And always do.
Same with Cryptic. If Germany decides lock boxes are gambling, then you can bet it will become EU policy ere long. And Cryptic/PWE can simply not afford to lose a profitable market the size of Europe. They will simply comply with the law of the land. And that happens every day, really. It's just today it affects something we care about.
> @sophlogimo said:
> darthmeow504 wrote: »
>
> Quick question for all those claiming that lootboxes are gambling: Where's the cash out button? [...]
>
> The German authorities don't care for your personal gambling definition.The one used in Germany does not include a cash-out button, but merely that it is mainly influenced by chance.
This is only partly true. Gambling is defined as a game of chance but that is game theory. Legally, in Germany, gambling requires a monetary wager (not pay out, the pay out just has to be something 'of value' which could be true for in-game items). Since STO doesn't require money to enter the lockbox game (due to the dilithium exchange) it's not gambling.
If I was a lawyer I would question whether "of value" means "monetary value" or something else.
It should also be noted that protection of minors\players is only a part of the gambling legislation, it's primarily to combat money laundering and criminal organizations.
Yeah, US laws on gambling have the "no minors" thing as a foot note.
We decide that gambling is dangerous and hurts the development of children. We therefore have laws to protect them from gambling. That does not in any way imply that parents are not responsible for caring for their children. It just means that we realize that the safety and well-being of a child is not purely in the hands of the parents, but also the society the children grows up in.
Except that the laws don't actually amount to anything more substantial than "don't do that or we fine you". Also, they're focused on things like lotteries and casinos. Also there's the methodology. That tends to come down to "show us your ID". From what I remember of Germany it works pretty much the same over there.
Comments
My character Tsin'xing
No, I understood you.
Frankly, concept of a game asking players to send them a selfie with their ID, just to access content seems pretty ridiculous. Not saying I'm 100% sure they wouldn't implement it, but I'm not sure anyone would send them that selfie just to be able to gamble.
This also begs the question: whose laws is Cryptic going to follow when asking for age verification? Local laws of the player? US laws, where Cryptic is located? Chinese laws where PWE HQ are? Knowing how the gambling age can vary a lot (for example in Estonia it's only 16, meanwhile I think there are plenty of places where it's 21), this can create problems.
Realistically though, I don't see anything happening. Cryptic's/PWE's lawers can just state their boxes are not gambling as players always get *something* and that's it. We, players, can argue whether it's moral or whether it's *technically* gambling, but in the eyes of law I would guess they're pretty clean.
P.S. Wow, is the age of consent, as well as the age to consume alcohol really that high in the Netherlands (17 and 21 respectively)?
U.S.S. Buteo Regalis - Brigid Multi-Mission Surveillance Explorer build
R.R.W. Ri Maajon - Khopesh Tactical Dreadnought Warbird build
My Youtube channel containing STO videos.
My character Tsin'xing
That would always be the law of the EU state they're doing business in. So, German law for Germany, Dutch law for the Netherlands, etc. Or EU law, when such EU law came to pass.
Well, that's precisely what's currently in question.
I was using USA examples. Here, the age of consent is 16, and 18 for drinking. The former nobody cares about, really. Technically, everyone who has sex with a minor (older than 12, but younger than 16) commits 'statutory r*pe', even if he or she willingly engaged in the act. This, as far as I know, has never gone to trial for children having sex amongst themselves (but would certainly be prosecuted for, say, a teacher and a minor). The drinking age is pretty strictly adhered to, since the last few years, with hefty fines for those who serve alcohol to minors.
Anyway, I feel I grossly digress.
Not saying I'm 100% sure they would implement it, but I can assure you that at least Dutch law would require Cryptic to put far more stringent safeguards in place than just having to type in your birthday.
I don't know how you understand MMOs to work, but it is not like Germany is a select country invited to STO and can just be replaced by another. STO is already available in all countries of the world (bar North Korea), and there's no "others to grow" where it isn't already growing. And while I don't know STO's numbers, in F2P MMOs in general Europe (which of course is way more than just Germany, but Germany is a big chunk) is way larger than North America. Losing Germany would put quite a dent into revenue. Losing the whole EU later on could be even more disastrous.
Uhm, are you implying that there are cultures on Earth where parenting is someone else's responsibility than parents' of the child? Perhaps you should take a small break from consuming sci-fi.
Using same logic, nobody cares what *you* think about that.
U.S.S. Buteo Regalis - Brigid Multi-Mission Surveillance Explorer build
R.R.W. Ri Maajon - Khopesh Tactical Dreadnought Warbird build
My Youtube channel containing STO videos.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
> darthmeow504 wrote: »
>
> Quick question for all those claiming that lootboxes are gambling: Where's the cash out button? [...]
>
>
>
>
> The German authorities don't care for your personal gambling definition.The one used in Germany does not include a cash-out button, but merely that it is mainly influenced by chance.
This is only partly true. Gambling is defined as a game of chance but that is game theory. Legally, in Germany, gambling requires a monetary wager (not pay out, the pay out just has to be something 'of value' which could be true for in-game items). Since STO doesn't require money to enter the lockbox game (due to the dilithium exchange) it's not gambling.
It should also be noted that protection of minors\players is only a part of the gambling legislation, it's primarily to combat money laundering and criminal organizations.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
To the first refute... so do sto players - addicts however of casinos or lockboxes...
However you misunderestimate the human drive that is 'x amount of y to get z 'free' ' - you feel good (a lower endorphin rush than the lockbox opening anticipatory rush) when you can buy something with/recieve as a subprize lobi and that erases the negativity of the 'losses' (as nobody wants a piddly 100 fm token), further enticing the purestrings to be loosened
Comps and lobi provide a secondary endorphin rush as it feels like you've won 'something' even when losing - and yes, at the base of it thats why our bodies enjoy gambling... it sends an anticipatory jolt of endorphines, same as if doing a lucky dip at a church fete
Hence why I believe in pure technical terms lobi and casino comps are the same, they both remove the need for the endorphin rush to die the moment you get a bad result, not giving the body time to lose that high before clicking the next key (or in casino terms, just as you get a bad run, a free drink comes along 'courtesy of the house')
Heres an experiment (well, not that you can run it yourself considering you've read the above which introduce bias)
>Have a stack of 10 lockbox keys and a single
Now open the single and regard how you feel after opening it and getting a bad result (ignoring if you win the major prize...if so, lucky devil)
Now the next day, open the ten boxes
Notice how after opening the ten boxes you feel better than opening a single and if you got nothing better than 'common' prizes, you likely thought 'at least I got the lobi?'
Exactly my point.
As to the second... there is a BASE amount, not really a set amount due to odds- when you (hypothetically) lockbox for lobi; one hopes for the highest amount, right? A base amount is not a set amount due to the odds of getting more is greater than recieving the base amount
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Ownership is also a 24/7/365 responsibility, if you nelgect your property or lose it somewhere, you are culpable. Yet we have laws against thievery or property damage.
Not murdering someone is also a 24/7/365 responsibility, and yet we have laws against murder.
There are also bad parents, people that hurt and physically, mentally or sexually abuse their children, and we have laws against that. There are also bad people, that snatch children and do terrible things to them and we have laws against that, and it is not a sign that we think parents are not responsible for their children.
We don't allow kids to own guns, and yet that doesn't mean that we don't think parents are not responsible for their children.
We decide that gambling is dangerous and hurts the development of children. We therefore have laws to protect them from gambling. That does not in any way imply that parents are not responsible for caring for their children. It just means that we realize that the safety and well-being of a child is not purely in the hands of the parents, but also the society the children grows up in.
Yes, he is implying that. There are cultures on earth, quite a few actually, who think it is not only the responsibility of the parents but also of the society as a whole. Not least because society as a whole benefits from there being children. These same cultures also think that 24/7 parenting is not only impossible but also bad for the development of children into self sustaining responsible adults - "helicopter parents" will not allow their kids to grow in the view of these cultures.
That doesn't mean however that kids aren't responsible for what they are doing (up to the degree they would be able to understand the consequences). It also doesn't mean that parents aren't responsible for what their kids are doing. But it means that these cultures think that it helps if during this process we would be limiting dangers, like companies targeting the weak. These cultures think companies have responsibilities, too, about what happens when their products are used.
But I feel that this whole discussion is leading away from the issue at hand, because as sophlogimo has addressed, this culture won't be changed, it is to be taken as a given.
It is of course true that this is the most simple solution. The question just is: how much of revenue, how much of profit will losing Germany cost them. And how much potential more loss is there when the EU harmonizes in this way. So it may not be the cheapest solution after all.
The whole issue of "different markets with different laws" is not new at all and usually companies opt for adapting. However online gaming is quite different in that you can easily (albeit at a cost) build, say, different engines for different markets to comply with respective standards, while a "one economy in an MMO to suit all regulations worldwide" will be more difficult.
https://support.arcgames.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1635/p/624/c/388
If PWE's beancounters think adding Germany to the list of "disabled regions" is cheaper than complying with draconian legislation, they'll do it without a second thought. I'm not going to speculate on the distribution of PWE's revenue base.
Or they could, I suppose, allow germans to play but block them from opening lockboxes.
I'm also rather confident the rest of Europe have more common sense than this, even if Germany doesn't. Lockbox/item summon systems are just like trading card packs, easter surprise eggs, etc items whose contents you only know after purchase, with "on a computer" added to the end. That only counts as a difference in the patent office.
I was going to make a lengthy post, saying just that.
The first part is obviously correct, though the word "draconian" seems a bit exaggerated. But that is not so much the question as the question about "how much will it cost? Will it affect updates/prices/manpower for STO?" (well, for the others, for Germans obviously the first part is important as well).
Possible, but also a logistical hiccup that costs money to implement and may have unwanted side effects.
Apart from the "common sense" part already addressed: it has been stated quite often in this thread, why this may be considered not to be the case. Only seeing your side of the argument without even considering the train of thought of the other side, instead dismissing it wholly as "not common sense" may get you into quite a few unexpected surprises.
Nah, they won't. Take Microsoft, for instance. The EU has slapped them with legislation many times and/or huge fines (in the hundreds of millions). For example, the EU anti-trust legislation forced them offer other browsers than just their own IE, at the time. And they didn't just stop selling Windows in Europe; because they can't afford to lose that big a market. And they simply complied. And always do.
Same with Cryptic. If Germany decides lock boxes are gambling, then you can bet it will become EU policy ere long. And Cryptic/PWE can simply not afford to lose a profitable market the size of Europe. They will simply comply with the law of the land. And that happens every day, really. It's just today it affects something we care about.
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing