Let's flip for it.Djornson wrote:And then how do we get to homelessness? I think i was trying to say there are varying degrees of addiction all of which is bad. But now you are talking about gambling. Gambling isn't necessarily addictive. Not all gambling is bad. (Poker with your mates is pretty fun.) Don't children gamble with like.. marbles? conkers? I don't even know if i'm agreeing or disagreeing with you anymoreYossarian wrote:Because the argument has been made in this thread that loot boxes = gambling and that loot boxes in games are basically introducing children to gambling.Djornson wrote:I was addicted to World of Warcraft at one point. It made my life pretty shit. It's not the worst addiction but not a happy state of mind. Why are we equating addiction to homelessness?
Thank you for providing something solid, but as far as loot boxes go, that only really covers whether or not they can and should be considered gambling based on whether or not the prizes have a monetary value.monkey wrote:What are you disputing Yoss? That exposure to gambling at a young age doesn’t affect people? Or that loot boxes aren’t gambling? If it’s the first there’s countless studies on it, do a google, take your pick. If it’s the second one have a read of this report which caused a petition and an MP asking a question in parliament about it and the government recognising the risk. http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/Virtual-currencies-eSports-and-social-casino-gaming.pdf You’re currently less enlightened on this issue than the Tory government. Congrats.
Yossarian wrote:should be considered gambling based on whether or not the prizes have amonetarypersonal value.
Again, your personal experience and 'I reckons' against mine (I usually spend about that much on games too BTW). And you keep asking others for hard evidence...Yossarian wrote:‘Scape, you’re on a pretty fixed income so that’s one thing, Jon, you buy far more games than most people. I expect I’m more typical in how I approach things, I reckon I probably spend something in the region of £200-£250 on games per year, some years a bit more, some a bit less. I could easily spend more if I wanted to, but I’d rather spend my other disposable income on other things. I think this is how most people view buying games. Were I to decide that I wanted to get into FUT, say, and I started buying card packs for that, it wouldn’t affect the small amount I spend on games each year, it would come out of my other disposable income. I’m sure some need to budget more carefully and for them it might be different, but I think that most people who buy games spend a small enough on them that they aren’t likely to be overly concerned about it and have other cash that they could put towards gaming instead of a meal or a night at the pub or whatever.
Vela wrote:I'd prefer a minimum age rating of 18+ for any loot box games.
Kow wrote:They're putting the money into developing new games? No, they're putting the money into new loot box systems and new ways of sucking more money out of you. Fuck em.
M0stly harm13ss wrote:Damn it, lost a long reply due to my incompetence.
I'll type it up again, but for now we aren't talking about Magic, sticker books, etc. Don't introduce a series of logical fallacies into the discussion (burden of proof earlier on, black or white/false equivalence now) to try and strengthen your position.
I'll set out my position to make it clear.
Kow wrote:I think the yanks have the right idea about banning gambling, it's a seedy and sleazy and damaging thing. I enjoy gaming, I don't want to be part of a gambling scene, whether or not I participate in that aspect of it. So again, fuck em.
Yossarian wrote:FWIW, this isn’t particularly an attempt to strengthen my argument, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again that I am willing to shift on this, but the arguments on the other side can pretty much be summed up as “I don’t like it and it is harmful”. The first argument is fine, it’s personal opinion, the second strikes me as being a massive, collective reckon.M0stly harm13ss wrote:Damn it, lost a long reply due to my incompetence. I'll type it up again, but for now we aren't talking about Magic, sticker books, etc. Don't introduce a series of logical fallacies into the discussion (burden of proof earlier on, black or white/false equivalence now) to try and strengthen your position. I'll set out my position to make it clear.
Would you need the same level of evidence if EA were putting a pack of fags and a lighter on the front of every copy of FIFA? Or would you recognise that that has a strong potential to cause harm even without having a ten year, outcome-charting, cohort study?Yossarian wrote:Thank you for providing something solid, but as far as loot boxes go, that only really covers whether or not they can and should be considered gambling based on whether or not the prizes have a monetary value.monkey wrote:What are you disputing Yoss? That exposure to gambling at a young age doesn’t affect people? Or that loot boxes aren’t gambling? If it’s the first there’s countless studies on it, do a google, take your pick. If it’s the second one have a read of this report which caused a petition and an MP asking a question in parliament about it and the government recognising the risk. http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/Virtual-currencies-eSports-and-social-casino-gaming.pdf You’re currently less enlightened on this issue than the Tory government. Congrats.
My question is about whether or not loot boxes are actually causing harm or are basically benign, if annoying.
Yossarian wrote:I do accept that those can be a problem yes, there’s plenty of evidence that those can be a problem, they also all crucially allow the winning of actual money rather than digital items. If we take prize money out of the equation are the same risks present?
Additionally, many people find themselves unable to explain why they continue to gamble despite the problems it causes in their day-to-day lives. The most obvious answer is “for the money”, but perhaps you can challenge yourself here: When you win, do you spend your winnings on more gambling? Do you continue to gamble until you have little or no money left?
A lot of gamblers feel they are waiting for the 'big win', which never comes but always seems tantalisingly close. But often, they find having a big win would simply fuel their desire for more gambling, leaving them feeling trapped into a behaviour with no way out.
This would suggest that being 'in action' is the most important thing, rather than winning an amount of money.
Would you need the same evidence threshold if they were giving fags to kids?Yossarian wrote:Dante, you aren’t sharing anything I’m unaware of here, my point is that I’m yet to see any evidence of harm being caused by lootboxes in games.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!