Which, as I've already stated before, merely reinforces my initial statement that these predatory practices are so rampant, it immediately becomes a marketing point if a game is sold without such practices. That's just incredibly sad.
Oh dear lord, it is so sad that so many people enjoy games you don't like...
Uhm, considering that the same game can be sold with or without predatory monetization pretty much underlines the fact that these practices are not an intrinsic part of the game, but and extrinsic part of its marketing.
But you said it effects gameplay, therefor it's part of the gameplay features. You don't like those features, that's cool. How about just not playing the game instead of demanding every game be giftwrapped especially for you?
I don't need reddit to come to my own conclusions, so maybe turn your baseless assumptions about me down a notch. I thought we were having a civil discussion here, so what's up with the silly ad hominems?
My apologies for any of that, just very passionate about my games and having real trouble understanding why any reasonable person would need the government to help them not spend money they don't want to spend... they could just not spend the money or something crazy like... uh... not spending the money...
Ah yes, contrary to your enlightened position. Get off your high horse and we just might have a discussion worth having.
I'm sorry but when I have the clearly superior opinion, my horse is just way too high. I'm arguing personal responsibility and free market, for people to have the freedom to buy products the enjoy... you're arguing to be coddled so every product is perfectly designed for you by law and anything you don't like be banned... I mean c'mon...
So you'd rather not buy a game that you might enjoy otherwise only because you're afraid government might step in to regulate predatory practices that are not only negatively impacting gamers as consumers but are also since long regulated in pretty much every other consumer domain? Ok...
No, I'd rather not buy a game I won't enjoy because it's not a game made for my tastes, because it's made for other people who really enjoy that type of game. I'd rather wait for the competition to make a similar game that's better and more to my liking than demand that the first company be forced at gunpoint to make the game I like...
Yeah, tell that the thousands of individuals who practically ruined themselves through these predatory practices. I'm not denying the responsibility of the individual consumer, but contrary to you I'm also not forgetting the responsibility of the publishers who clearly aren't respecting their audience.
Thousands is literally a VERY small percentage of gamers. So what you are saying is statistically, this is BARELY a problem for people? WHO KNEW?!? And again I don't see how publishers aren't respecting their audience who keeps buying their products... obviously their audience is loving whatever respect they are getting...
Good games with bad monetization schemes are still good games, they are just a mediocre product. I want good games to be good products too, it's really not difficult to understand.
It's not difficult to understand how a good game is a mediocre product? It's either good or it's mediocre, either you like it or you don't. Either like it and play it or dislike it and don't play it, and leave those that like it alone and free to play their game...
I think to have sufficiently explained why people are falling for such practices, if you'd have read my OP, behavioral conditioning is a b*tch. Also considering how prevalent these practices have become, it's not like poeple really have that much of a choice, it's either accepting these predatory practices as a necessary evil or not play these games at all. Which, to be quite frank, is not a healthy solution at all.
As to why people make these purchases, I'd advise you to read
the following study, which suggests that these consumer behaviors are not the result of free choice, but of psychological manipulation and influence:
And yet only an incredibly small percentage of people are effected by this supposed "manipulation". Nobody is twisting anyone's arm and forcing them to buy things, they did make the free choice to purchase it, it's not Obamacare. However, a large percentage of gamers are buying microtransactions happily and without issues, so freedom prevails...
Also, I'm not "taking people's video games away", that's just silly. I seek to have discussion on our interests as consumers. So please provide evidence where I'm asking for games to be banned, when I'm simply making the case for certain predatory practices to be regulated.
You're asking for games with "predatory practices" to be banned or have those practices taken out of them/changed/regulated which other people clearly enjoy, so yes you are taking people's games away. What do you think, when the government regulates these practices, that the games is going to play exactly the same except with a little label that says "now regulated!"? There will be consequences, and not only that, but I'm more concerned about the unforseen circumstances that come with regulation. The government sucks at regulation, and just like almost every regulated product, they will just get in the way of progress and probably slap taxes on for good measure...
You can scream and shout and stomp your feet all you want, but I'm not arguing for governmental intervention in video games, I'm arguing for governmental regulation for the sake of consumer protection. The same protections that already exist when it comes to other consumer domains.
Loot Boxes, which are abundant in today's video games should for the most part be considered gambling and pose a
huge risk to younger gamers:
Regulation IS intervention, you're talking in circles again. Lootboxes are not gambling, again they are no different than baseball cards and shopkins. And even if kids were gambling I don't see how a few crazy loonies who are susceptible to gambling addiction are a huge risk to the general population. Gambling addictions have a very hard correlation with much deeper psychological issues, I'm not going to blame a video game for triggering someone's mania. This is Mortal Kombat in the 90s all over again...
And AGAIN as this is very important, stop standing on the toes of kids with mental disorders to prove your point when clearly by your own admission this isn't about the kids, it's about you having more games made that you enjoy. You're just using the kids rhetoric as a crutch to make it seems as though anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't morally sound, when if you really cared about the kids, you'd be more concerned with them being able to play the games that they enjoy without the government literally taking their toys away. So please don't play that game anymore, it's not going to work on me...
The same goes for virtual currencies, which merely serve to manipulate consumer behavior by separating virtual goods from real life money and thus obfuscating how much hard cash players are really spending.
I don't want these predatory monetization practices to be targeted at younger audiences, young consumers who are still unequipped to defend themselves against these backhanded and subversive tactics. Go and watch the videos I posted in the OP and tell me how these practices are in any way defensible.
As far as virtual currency goes, I'm sorry but people who can't do basic math shouldn't have access to a credit cards. Buyer beware, simple as that. You can't blame the snake oil salesman if he upfront informs you exactly what the product is and you still buy it... Again it's not the government's job to decide what products are "bad" and don't deserve to be on the market unless they actually pose health risks to people. Young audiences are actually more equipped than adults to understand a good purchase from a bad one, because they have the benefit of having parents to tell them what's a good idea and what's a bad idea before every decision they make. If neglectful parents give their kids their credit card and don't pay attention to them, that's on them. The practices are defensible because they honestly tell you the price and what you are getting in return, and the end user voluntarily agrees to purchase the product. That's freedom baby, and it's beautiful. Sorry if I have little sympathy for those that choose to conduct business without having any business sense...
t's quite apparent that the video games market is woefully unable to regulate itself, as evidenced by the fact that big publishers refuse to comply with legislation.
Again, that's the publisher going to court in order to fight the interpretation of the law, which is the most responsible thing the publisher could possibly do. They are going in head first and taking whatever ruling comes their way, and clearing up any potential future confusion in the process via legal precedent. I fail to see how them having a legal disagreement means they can't regulate themselves... if they continue to break the law after this ruling they go to prison, that's how the law works. Would you take away a person's driver's licence just because they plead not guilty to a speeding ticket in court? Cmon dude...
