test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Lootbox Lawsuit and Legislation

135

Comments

  • jexsamxjexsamx Member Posts: 2,802 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    By that reasoning, Jex, it is absolutely unconscionable that stores are permitted to sell liquor - it's known to be highly addictive, damaging its users' judgement and encouraging them to take just one more drink, that's bound to be the one that makes everything all right...

    For that matter, fast food is more predatory than STO lockboxes. At least getting lobi and gear for your ships doesn't negatively affect your health. And yet there they are, people with triglyceride levels more suitable to a tub of butter than a human, scarfing down cheeseburgers - and a certain percentage of them are doing so as a maladaptive technique to deal with a psychological trauma or internal emptiness. Clearly, McDonald's must be outlawed to save those poor souls from themselves!!

    Or, y'know, there's always personal responsibility for one's actions...

    This isn't Depressive Personality Disorder or ASD or something, where the patient is subject to mental impulses that cannot be controlled short of sedation. This is a matter of spending some money, and supposedly being adult enough to set limits on that. Cryptic isn't "preying" on anyone, any more than Mickey D's is "preying" on people with eating disorders or Jameson's is "preying" on alcoholics.

    Last time I checked, they weren't selling alcohol to children. There's no ID check for a lootbox.
  • jexsamxjexsamx Member Posts: 2,802 Arc User
    I think what's happening here is people are reading my "if you buy X, you get X" line, and they aren't understanding what I mean or why I use it. The assumption being made, I think, is people think I'm claiming Cryptic have advertised things in a misleading way or that I think said advertising is somehow the problem. That's both not true and not my point. Cryptic, while scummy insofar as never divulging exact odds, have at least had the decency to claim you only have a chance at winning the ship. That the grand prize is no guarantee is pretty clear, even if little else is.

    I use the line to illustrate the difference between buying something you know you're going to get versus buying something you might get, and how in some people it can cause that dangerous "just one more" mentality.

    Advertising is not the issue I am trying to illuminate, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stay on the topic of lootboxes and why they're so easy to do in really, really scummy ways.

    And again, I'm not against lootboxes. I said earlier I've bought quite a few myself, so that would be rather hypocritical. What I'm against, and have grown increasingly moreso the more I learn on the subject (it's been well over a year since my last lockbox key purchase, I would add at this point), is the implementation thereof that preys those susceptible to such addictions, as well as taking advantage of children who simply lack the understanding of what they're doing and whose parents may not have any idea what's going on. Cryptic;s even sitting on a half-implemented solution - Lobi. It's a guaranteed minimum payout that accrues over time and can be used on its own pretty substantial rewards. The only failing point, the only reason Cryptic's lootboxes remain problematic, is the carrot on the end of the indeterminately long stick is only available by "just one more" tactics. Putting the grand prize in the Lobi store for some amount higher than the consolation prize ships would be enough.

    If this doesn't clear up my point and make my position abundantly clear, I am honestly out of ideas.
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,950 Arc User
    edited June 2019
    azrael605 wrote: »
    Read the proposed bill. STOs lockboxes do not meet any of the criterion listed in the bill.

    This reply that I made to Jonsills about 6 posts below the one you quoted already expressed my opinions on that statement:
    jonsills wrote: »
    The bill says what it says, in relatively clear language.

    Oh I've read the text of the proposed bill, and I respectfully disagree completely with your interpretation of it in regards to STO.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    Jex, money can only be thrown at the game via credit card or PayPal.

    Minors, legally speaking, can't use a credit card or PayPal account without an adult's acquiescence. That's the "ID check" - it's not up to Cryptic to make sure children aren't stealing Mommy's cards.

    Also, I respectfully submit that the number of children with gambling problems (the issue we were actually discussing earlier) is vanishingly small. So that part doesn't apply either.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    Jex, money can only be thrown at the game via credit card or PayPal.

    Minors, legally speaking, can't use a credit card or PayPal account without an adult's acquiescence. That's the "ID check" - it's not up to Cryptic to make sure children aren't stealing Mommy's cards.

    Also, I respectfully submit that the number of children with gambling problems (the issue we were actually discussing earlier) is vanishingly small. So that part doesn't apply either.

    Not strictly true Jonsills. Several banks in the UK at least will allow minors to open a bank account from the age of 13, complete with debit card. Sure, you still need a parent/guardian's permission, but said parent/guardian can't necessarily control what the minor spends the money on.
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,950 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    The PARENT is responsible for the minor.

    If a minor puts a quarter into a slot machine the casino is held responsible for it. Aside from the current technicality of lootboxes not fitting the outdated legal definition of gambling why should video game companies be any different?
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,950 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    If a minor puts a quarter into a slot machine the casino is held responsible for it. Aside from the current technicality of lootboxes not fitting the outdated legal definition of gambling why should video game companies be any different?

    Where are the minors parents and why do they allow their underage child to run about unattended in a casino?

    I don't know whether you have children or not, however if your view is that when they do something wrong it is somehow the responsibility of others to fix, I feel sorry for your kids.

    Parents can face legal trouble for it as well, but that's irrelevant to my question. If a casino is held responsible for a minor using one of their slot machines then why shouldn't game developers be held responsible for minors using their lootboxes?
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    A parent must vouch for the child just to play, much less spend any money here. To make your comparison at all apt, you'd have to include the parent bringing the child into the casino without the casino's knowledge. (I don't know how casinos run where you are, but on the reservations around here and on my rare trips to Vegas they have bouncers at the door to turn away underage people. That's... not a thing online.)

    And again, how many children do you know with a gambling problem? And if your child had a gambling problem, would you simply allow them unfettered access to money?
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    jexsamx wrote: »
    I use the line to illustrate the difference between buying something you know you're going to get versus buying something you might get, and how in some people it can cause that dangerous "just one more" mentality.

    But you know what you are going to get by opening a box - lobi. You get them without fail every single time.
    Sometimes I'll buy an R&D box off the Exchange for that very purpose. One day I plan to accumulate the lobi I need to purchase the DSC Terran Imperial uniform.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,950 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    And again, how many children do you know with a gambling problem? And if your child had a gambling problem, would you simply allow them unfettered access to money?

    They don't have a gambling problem as children, but children raised with constant exposure to lootboxes are, imho, far more likely to have gambling problems as adults than previous generations were. I don't know if they've been around long enough for studies to have been conducted on that, but studies HAVE found that lootboxes affect the brain in the exact same manner as slot machines.
    valoreah wrote: »
    Parents can face legal trouble for it as well, but that's irrelevant to my question. If a casino is held responsible for a minor using one of their slot machines then why shouldn't game developers be held responsible for minors using their lootboxes?

    No, it is not irrelevant. A minor breaking the law by gambling at a casino and the casino/parents getting fined is the direct result of an irresponsible parent.

    Your refusal to answer a direct question would make you a great politician. That is not a compliment.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    That the parent is responsible for the child being in such a position in the first place doesn't stop the issue from existing. Jonsills made the argument that minors (in this case I'm talking 12+ because that's the age advisory on STO in the UK last I checked) don't have access to money. I pointed out that some do. In the UK it's common to give kids their own bank accounts (funded from the parents', naturally) so they can get bus tickets, or go to the shops after school. But once that money's transferred over to the child's bank account, the parent doesn't necessarily have control or even surveillance of what it's being spent on (some accounts will give parents more oversight, others won't.). Contrary to popular opinion, parents cannot watch their children every second of every day. And few are tech savvy enough to know how to set parental controls on their WiFi network or child's computer, because they aren't taught how to. And even then, most online game stores do not flag up warnings about games having lootbox-- sorry, "surprise" mechanics.

    I'm all for parental responsibility, but refusing to recognise the very real challenges that go into monitoring a child's behaviour is unhelpful, especially in a culture like the UK where "policing" a child is frowned upon in favour of trusting them from a certain age to take responsibility for their own actions.
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,950 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    It is the responsibility of the parent to teach them good from bad.

    And as a society we have also accepted that it is also the responsibility of merchants to ensure they do not sell minors things that it are illegal for them to purchase. If a liquor store sells beer to a minor they will be fined and could face other consequences as well. If a convenience store sells cigarettes or an adult magazine to a minor they will be fined. If a minor gambles at a casino the casino will be fined. Game companies are the ones selling the lootboxes, so if lootboxes are ever legally classified as gambling or otherwise banned from sale to minors why should they not face the same consequences other merchants do when it comes to illegal sales to minors?

    And for the record, parents being responsible as well is obvious, should not need to be stated, and is completely irrelevant to the topic of a merchant selling legally prohibited items to a minor.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,950 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    taking responsibility for their own actions. That's where it belongs.

    So in your opinion if a 14 year old walks into a liquor store on their way home from school and buys a six-pack of beer the store shouldn't face any legal ramifications for failing to check ID?
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    ryan218 wrote: »
    That the parent is responsible for the child being in such a position in the first place doesn't stop the issue from existing. Jonsills made the argument that minors (in this case I'm talking 12+ because that's the age advisory on STO in the UK last I checked) don't have access to money. I pointed out that some do. In the UK it's common to give kids their own bank accounts (funded from the parents', naturally) so they can get bus tickets, or go to the shops after school. But once that money's transferred over to the child's bank account, the parent doesn't necessarily have control or even surveillance of what it's being spent on (some accounts will give parents more oversight, others won't.). Contrary to popular opinion, parents cannot watch their children every second of every day. And few are tech savvy enough to know how to set parental controls on their WiFi network or child's computer, because they aren't taught how to. And even then, most online game stores do not flag up warnings about games having lootbox-- sorry, "surprise" mechanics.

    I'm all for parental responsibility, but refusing to recognise the very real challenges that go into monitoring a child's behaviour is unhelpful, especially in a culture like the UK where "policing" a child is frowned upon in favour of trusting them from a certain age to take responsibility for their own actions.

    Who said that being a parent is not challenging?

    Your last sentence says it all - taking responsibility for their own actions. That's where it belongs.

    Yes, but in the UK it's difficult because there's a problem with peer pressure in schools (linked to severe bullying rates). Schools often fail to take any action because the education authorities don't want to pay the costs of dealing with the issues, but parents aren't allowed to take action on school matters themselves. This actually happened to a friend of mine, who was assaulted in the classroom by another student (we went to different schools). She was so traumatised by the experience that when she went back and found the student who attacked her was still there, because the parents had complained to not have her excluded (equivalent of expelled), her mother had to take the extreme option of taking her out of school entirely and home schooling her.

    The point is in the UK children come under immense pressure on the playground to conform to "norms", which include lootbox games like FortNite. The schools won't act to create an environment where children will feel comfortable to deviate from their peers, and parents can't take action themselves. In fact, the first a parent might find out their child is in such a position is when their child gets an overdraft letter through the door. The problem is that society (and the state) expect parents to behave one way towards their kids, but refuse to take responsibility when it is indisputably theirs: that's the deal when we send our children to school. We expect that the school will take care of the child, because it's outside the parents' control once it's on the playground.

    Heck, in the UK if a student is abused by another student on the way to or from school, even if it's not on school property, the police will refuse to get involved because it's treated as the school's responsibility (cookie for anyone who can guess what the school does in such a situation.*)

    UK laws and society make it very difficult for a parent to take responsibility for their child if their child can't be responsible for themselves - and we're not just talking gaming or bullying. My school had a terrible reputation for narcotics for example, and a neighbouring school even had the students literally set the school on fire! But the state education system here makes it very difficult for a parent to actually do anything in response, and the funding system (which is imposed by the gov, effectively) practically precludes the schools from doing anything.

    The problem is the kids are getting drawn into this stuff at school, the parents aren't being told, and by the time they find out it's too late to stop it. Age verifications would go some way to helping, but one of the aspects of peer pressure is it means the 'cool' kids (read: bullying **********s) intimidate or otherwise pressure the meeker students to lie, and schools employing Web blocks doesn't help, because the pressure continues at home. And if a child doesn't succumb to the pressure? That just marks them out for some of the most vicious bullying you'll see on any playground in the Western world - and I'm speaking from personal experience on that one. And telling the school is useless - the Department for Education's funding system penalises them for excluding students. It's not just an individual problem, it's linked to a much wider social problem around how our children actually develop.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited June 2019
    valoreah wrote: »
    ryan218 wrote: »
    The point is in the UK children come under immense pressure on the playground to conform to "norms", which include lootbox games like FortNite.

    I stopped reading after this. I'm sorry, but if you as a parent cannot stop your child from doing something because of "peer pressure" from society, then you shouldn't have children.

    I literally spent the rest of that post explaining why it's a problem. At this point, you're being wilfully ignorant. I'm not explaining again just because you refuse to consider an alternate point of view.

    EDIT: Also, I'm not speaking as a parent, I'm speaking as a young adult who was in the position those kids are in, so I understand what they're going through, because I was bullied so badly for being Christian, fat, and shy that I missed entire weeks off school because the thought of going into school made me physically ill. That's not my parents' fault: it's the school's for not doing anything to stop it.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    ryan218 wrote: »
    I literally spent the rest of that post explaining why it's a problem. At this point, you're being wilfully ignorant. I'm not explaining again just because you refuse to consider an alternate point of view.

    And I've literally said several times now that no matter the difficulty, the ultimate responsibility lies with the parent. Of course it is not easy. Of course it is challenging. No one ever said it would be easy. We all know bad things can and do happen, despite our best efforts. However, that is not an excuse to pass the buck in terms of responsibility.

    I'm all for alternative points of view. Doesn't seem like you are interested in them though. Should there be additional age verification of some sort? I guess. But at what point does it become a deterrent to using the product? And what do you do when those measures are defeated or circumvented?

    Take @evilmark's example above about the kid in the liquor store.

    Should the shop keeper be punished for not checking ID? Of course. Without question.
    Should the shop keeper be punished if they did ask for ID, but the ID they were shown was an indistinguishable forgery?



    See my edit above.
  • baddmoonrizinbaddmoonrizin Member Posts: 10,240 Community Moderator
    Just popping in to ask y'all to keep things civil. I'm not sure where everyone in here is from, but it's apparent that there are some cultural and legal differences with regards to comparing the US and elsewhere. Cryptic is a US based country, though. If another country did decide to outlaw lootboxes in games, that wouldn't necessarily require Cryptic to change their business model. They could just decide to not operate in that country anymore. It would be a shame if that happened, but there are already plenty of places in the world where they don't operate.
    GrWzQke.png
    Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
    Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
    Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
    ----> Contact Customer Support <----
    Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
    Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
    Want the latest information on Star Trek Online?
    Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,950 Arc User
    edited June 2019
    valoreah wrote: »
    That's all fine, but lootboxes aren't illegal in every country.

    I've been talking in reference to hypothetical future legislation in the US, whether it's the currently proposed senate bill or another like it sometime down the line, not current laws. I suppose it may not have been as clear as I intended, but the following sentences were meant to reflect this: "Aside from the current technicality of lootboxes not fitting the outdated legal definition of gambling" "so if lootboxes are ever legally classified as gambling or otherwise banned".
    Just popping in to ask y'all to keep things civil.

    Will do, I apologize for getting a bit heated this morning :)
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    There is nothing preventing minors from opening Lockboxes in STO. Just buy Master Keys from the Exchange. It could incentivize the minor to swipe their parent's credit card to obtain more Master Keys, but it still is the responsibility of the parent.
Sign In or Register to comment.