Support NeoGAF

[llien]

Yesterday, a US senator called Josh Hawley has announced the bill to legalize banning of the so-called "manipulative" video game design in the United States. The decision was proposed yesterday to the US Congress.

The proposed "Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act" would prohibit all the games geared towards children, that implement the "pay to win" model where a player is progressing through the game by paying for it. Senator also added that games that have in-game awards, such as loot boxes, that can be bought with real money, are supposed to get banned. For overseeing and enforcing the ban, the Federal Trade Commission would be in charge. They would be enabled to hire state attorneys that would prosecute companies that violate the ban.

"No matter this business model's advantages to the tech industry, one thing is clear: there is no excuse for exploiting children through such practices", said the Senator adding to his point.

The Entertainment Software Association on Wednesday put out a statement rejecting Hawley's proposal. The president and CEO of the video game industry trade group, Stanley Pierre-Louis, pointed out that numerous countries like Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, determined that loot boxes do not classify as gambling.

techpowerup

Kids told me "when you are using free skin in Fortnight, everyone targets you".
Not sure if that kind of behavior can be addressed.

 

[The Scrivener]

Do children have credit cards?

I don't know how I feel about the matter generally, but isn't parental responsibility enough?

 

[wvnative]

Most of the American published games seem to be the most manipulative, it'd be great if this led to industry wide changes but I suspect the ESA will lobby hard.

 

[angelic]

This can't possibly be the 1st thread on this.

 

[DonF]

Do children have credit cards?

I don't know how I feel about the matter generally, but isn't parental responsibility enough?

It should be. But then think about the game design. Its purposely done so that creates frustration, it slows the player down artificially, it involves psychology and manipulation, to get the player to spend more money. Its like a digital drug.

 

[matheusnienow]

I don't like the market being regulated, the parents should be responsible for the actions and purchases of their children

 

[demented waffle]

Yesterday, a US senator called Josh Hawley has announced the bill to legalize banning of the so-called "manipulative" video game design in the United States. The decision was proposed yesterday to the US Congress.

The proposed "Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act" would prohibit all the games geared towards children, that implement the "pay to win" model where a player is progressing through the game by paying for it. Senator also added that games that have in-game awards, such as loot boxes, that can be bought with real money, are supposed to get banned. For overseeing and enforcing the ban, the Federal Trade Commission would be in charge. They would be enabled to hire state attorneys that would prosecute companies that violate the ban.

"No matter this business model's advantages to the tech industry, one thing is clear: there is no excuse for exploiting children through such practices", said the Senator adding to his point.

The Entertainment Software Association on Wednesday put out a statement rejecting Hawley's proposal. The president and CEO of the video game industry trade group, Stanley Pierre-Louis, pointed out that numerous countries like Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, determined that loot boxes do not classify as gambling.

techpowerup

Kids told me "when you are using free skin in Fortnight, everyone targets you".
Not sure if that kind of behavior can be addressed.

Hmm. I hate MTX's. I hate government overreach.

 

[ConnorDuffy1977]

This is so incredibly stupid. Don't connect a payment source to an account where your children can use the money. Stop trying to legislate common sense. It won't have the desired effect. My son plays Fortnite and he spends an occasional $10 for the battle pass or whatever. But I completely monitor it all and explain that he doesn't need many of the cosmetic aspects of the game. It's really not that hard to remedy.

 

[The Scrivener]

It should be. But then think about the game design. Its purposely done so that creates frustration, it slows the player down artificially, it involves psychology and manipulation, to get the player to spend more money. Its like a digital drug.

In the case of Fortnite, probably. I'm 38 and even I thought it was stupid to have the noob skin character. I wouldn't play the game without buying the battle pass (I don't play it). I get the battle passes for my kids because it's their favourite game. But if the politican's evidence for protecting kids is that the noob skin players get killed first, then that's a weak argument.

So then, the question might be, how is this any different to any other game one buys? Either invest in the game or don't.

It's the publisher's choice not to have Fortnite with free 100 skins/weapons/upgrades or free battle passes. If a game like Fortnite came out with everything there "Day 1," then would it be as good a game? I'm not sure, probably not though, but I think politicians don't have the interests of the kids at heart anyway.

Rocket League has got it right with enough free upgrades on the core game and tradability of "better" items with Rocket Pass holders. Also, regarding skins, the best RL e-sports players are teenagers and mostly rock the most basic car in the game with no skins, so there! That already disproves his weak argument.

This is probably just a case of politicians gotta politician. Just look at his corny 'Muricun smile.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Usually adults are the ones that spend a crapload on games. Like those people that spend 10k a year on mobile.

 

[DonF]

In the case of Fortnite, probably. I'm 38 and even I thought it was stupid to have the noob skin character. I wouldn't play the game without buying the battle pass (I don't play it). I get the battle passes for my kids because it's their favourite game. But if the politican's evidence for protecting kids is that the noob skin players get killed first, then that's a weak argument.

So then, the question might be, how is this any different to any other game one buys? Either invest in the game or don't.

It's the publisher's choice not to have Fortnite with free 100 skins/weapons/upgrades or free battle passes. If a game like Fortnite came out with everything there "Day 1," then would it be as good a game? I'm not sure, probably not though, but I think politicians don't have the interests of the kids at heart anyway.

Rocket League has got it right with enough free upgrades on the core game and tradability of "better" items with Rocket Pass holders. Also, regarding skins, the best RL e-sports players are teenagers and mostly rock the most basic car in the game with no skins, so there! That already disproves his weak argument.

This is probably just a case of politicians gotta politician. Just look at his corny 'Muricun smile.

Agreed with all of your points.

Still, I think the problem is twofold. One is design of the game. The other is the gamble aspect of loot boxes.

Design is important since there are studios that actually hire psychologist and other specialist in behavior to maximize the FOMO and other things to get more money from players.

About lootboxes, the fact that some countries in the EU already have laws in place and even China of all places has laws about disclosing the probabilities of lootboxes is pretty telling.

Those two combined are a dangerous combination.

Now, fortnite in particular, I see no pay to win practices or lootboxes in that game, the season pass is some what of a "fear of missing out" situation, since the game has developed a culture of humiliating people that play with default or old skins (im also a 30+ years old gamer and I couldn't care less) and I wouldnt be surprised if that element was stealthy injected in the community by epic and all their refer a creator program.

 

[Wink]

He has to say children in this to get any kind of traction, but anyone who has looked into the matter knows that psychological manipulation that targets people who easily get addicted is a real issue. I would very much like to see these kinds of methods to be outright banned. It's ethically reprehensible and offers no value to consumers. To implement features only to profit from the weakminded only serves to make shareholders more rich and gaming worse.

 

[ConnorDuffy1977]

He has to say children in this to get any kind of traction, but anyone who has looked into the matter knows that psychological manipulation that targets people who easily get addicted is a real issue.

You know the saying. A fool and his money are soon parted. Like I said earlier, you can't legislate common sense.

 

[Wink]

You know the saying. A fool and his money are soon parted. Like I said earlier, you can't legislate common sense.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for people being ensnared in this due to how their brains respond to this type of manipulation. I'm not ready to shrug it off because it doesn't affect me. It can't be said enough, a little bit of empathy wouldn't hurt, especially when the ones profiting have long abandoned the concept.

 

[RedVIper]

I don't want government regulating gaming.

 

[stickkidsam]

I don't want government regulating gaming.

Is this regulating gaming or is it regulating shitty business practices?

People can still make whatever game they want. This just guts out the cancer that is microtransactions.

 

[Teslerum]

Is this regulating gaming or is it regulating shitty business practices?

People can still make whatever game they want. This just guts out the cancer that is microtransactions.

Additionally in more cases than not MTX directly influences game design and as a result make the game worse than it could be.

 

[ConnorDuffy1977]

I have a certain amount of sympathy for people being ensnared in this due to how their brains respond to this type of manipulation.

Where will it end though? Using this logic the lottery, casinos and sports books would also fall under manipulative marketing. And those are just the obvious offenders. While I certainly do have empathy for consumers who fall into this trap, I think federal legislation is a bit of an overreach at this point.

 

[RedVIper]

Is this regulating gaming or is it regulating shitty business practices?

People can still make whatever game they want. This just guts out the cancer that is microtransactions.

It gives the government the ability to regulate games however they see fit in the future, even if I think this particular measure if good, in the future they can come up with stuff I disagree with, and it will be harder to battle it then.

 

[stickkidsam]

Where will it end though? Using this logic the lottery, casinos and sports books would also fall under manipulative marketing. And those are just the obvious offenders. While I certainly do have empathy for consumers who fall into this trap, I think federal legislation is a bit of an overreach at this point.

Casinos are operated under strict guidelines that at the very least prevents anyone under 21 (or is it 18?) from participating.

There's also the matter of convenience that makes gambling at a casino/bar very different from microtransactions. Microtransactions are literally a couple taps away and I would bet that has a massive impact. With normal gambling, you at least have to go to a regulated business to waste your schmeckles away.

Microtransactions are predatory in every sense of the word (yes, they will literally eat your babies ) and I can not see any benefit to letting such a practice go unregulated. If there's a danger to this that I'm missing though, I'm interested in learning about it.

 

[stickkidsam]

It gives the government the ability to regulate games however they see fit in the future, even if I think this particular measure if good, in the future they can come up with stuff I disagree with, and it will be harder to battle it then.

They are regulating the business practice itself, not the content of the game. I feel this is an important distinction but I may be wrong to assume so.

To my knowledge, US law is built to protect the right and freedom of people to make what they want, but we do have laws and regulations for how it is sold. If that is correct, then I don't see this as a slippery slope.

Again though, I'm mostly making assumptions based on my cursory knowledge of this subject.

 

[LucidFeuer]

I'm glad I'm not living in dumbfuckistan, but in civilised Europe where this is "duh". Bleed these couch potatoes until they're poor corporations, in the US you're doing great.

 

[Screamer-RSA]

I just love that all the other publishers have EA to blame for this :’D

 

[Myths]

Hmm. I hate MTX's. I hate government overreach.

Same, this is a tough one

 

[Codes 208]

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/us-s...oxes-and-pay-to-win-microtransaction.1480414/

 

[egocrata]

I don't want government regulating gaming.

Gaming, no, I don't want regulation.

Gambling? You bet we need that. Gambling is a nasty, dangerous, destructive addiction. Many "free" games rely on this to make money. They should be regulated out of existence.

 

[Daymos]

Do children have credit cards?

I don't know how I feel about the matter generally, but isn't parental responsibility enough?

You can't push everything on the parents. When you have an entire culture influencing a teenager the parents have little chance of controlling them, parents aren't there 24/7 looking over their shoulders. It's like millions of adults do something stupid.. and then when a kid copies the millions of adults everyone wants to blame their parents for not stopping them.

Basically if people don't want kids to be stupid, then don't be stupid yourself... maybe it'll catch on and the world will improve. Thus I say ban pay to win for EVERYONE, not just kids.

 

[Mistershine.]

You can't push everything on the parents. When you have an entire culture influencing a teenager the parents have little chance of controlling them, parents aren't there 24/7 looking over their shoulders. It's like millions of adults do something stupid.. and then when a kid copies the millions of adults everyone wants to blame their parents for not stopping them.

Basically if people don't want kids to be stupid, then don't be stupid yourself... maybe it'll catch on and the world will improve. Thus I say ban pay to win for EVERYONE, not just kids.

You mean like the millions of people that go out drinking at the weekend? How dare they lead children they have no control over astray!

A a parent of 2 kids I prefer to do actual parenting than let the government dictate things like this.

 

[xGreir]

Shrek already answered us: The best Government is the one that stays far, far away.

A kid can't have a credit card. If they have a debit card, or make use of their parents credit card, it's under their supervision.

There aren't any problems with kids and gambling, there is a really huge problem with truly immature and un responsable adults and parents.

And yeah, if there is gambling in videogames, is because the player base supports it with all its might (and money).

Or do you really think that Fate Go (mobile game) makes more money than the entire music industry just because reasons?

If there isn't a gambling demand, then there is no gambling.

Well grown gamers love gambling in their games, with all the pain of my heart.

 

[zenspider]

I don't like the market being regulated, the parents should be responsible for the actions and purchases of their children

Parents should be responsible for thier children, but the government shouldn't be responsible for the market? The analogy tracks for me here because of the level of unchecked irresponsibilty and consequences.

The market apparatus is way too tilted in favor of these technologically driven psychological manipulations - gaming being the most blunt - and the fact is that the market has zero incentive to self-regulate.

Personally, I think the smarter move (and hopefully the end result) is to roll this into the ESRB and have the industry self-regulate by making all "free" products have the equivalent of an 'M' rating to put some kind of pause there, and clear and obvious messaging at every point of the transaction. The government has no business in game design.

However, this is exactly the place we need regulation. Tech is becoming too big and too fast to be unchecked. A few minutes listening to Tristan Harris should paint a picture of how rigged the game is, and how unreasonable it is to expect any one person, parent, child, or Senator to be solely vigilant in the face of these manipulative practices.

 

[ConnorDuffy1977]

Tech is becoming too big and too fast to be unchecked. A few minutes listening to Tristan Harris should paint a picture of how rigged the game is, and how unreasonable it is to expect any one person, parent, child, or Senator to be solely vigilant in the face of these manipulative practices.

You can't legislate common sense. It won't work. Those people will find some other avenue to waste their money on. That is the responsibility of the individual.

 

[Hendrick's]

Any time the government gets involved things turn to shit.

 

[PontiusFeeb]

The market has already regulated itself to some degree. EA had to backpedal on Star Wars pay-to-win. Keep the government out.

 

[stickkidsam]

You can't legislate common sense. It won't work. Those people will find some other avenue to waste their money on. That is the responsibility of the individual.

Just because someone will find some other place to waste their money on doesn't mean it's an excuse to not stop shitty business practices that are harming the consumer.

We aren't talking about preventing game devs from making the game's they want. We are talking about putting a stop to a legitimate problem spreading through gaming as a business model. Microtransactions aren't just predatory and worthless practices, they negatively affect game design as well. It shifts the players interest towards spending money to have enjoy more of the game rather than benefitting from actually playing the damn game.

What is the benefit of allowing these practices to go unregulated? What is the downside too, because I'm not seeing one.

 

[ConnorDuffy1977]

What is the benefit of allowing these practices to go unregulated? What is the downside too, because I'm not seeing one.

It's a way for developers and publishers to make money without raising the price of games overall. I'd MUCH rather have that sort of system. How hard is it to simply say 'no'? Are you that impulsive and compulsive that you cannot refrain from purchasing in-game content? And how many people are affected by this? Give me some meaningful statistics that show this is an epidemic.

 

[LollipoPReapeR]

So basically while the premise for this bill is good, there is the slippery slope argument. Sigh, I really do want to be rid of MTXs though.

 

[daveonezero]

It’s never good when the government gets involved in something they do not understand.

 

[stickkidsam]

It's a way for developers and publishers to make money without raising the price of games overall. I'd MUCH rather have that sort of system. How hard is it to simply say 'no'? Are you that impulsive and compulsive that you cannot refrain from purchasing in-game content? And how many people are affected by this? Give me some meaningful statistics that show this is an epidemic.

The only microtransaction I've ever bought was a season pass back when Fortnite started that trend, and one of those dinky packs to get a skin. I will forever live in shame because of it.

I don't have a problem saying fuck no to microtransactions. The problem is I am still getting a shit deal, because I am now losing access to a lot of content that is now locked behind microtransactions. That means everybody playing games is negatively affected by this practice whether or not they spend money on it.

I do not for a second buy this idea that games need microtransactions to stay $60 or lower. If you want to talk evidence, show me the evidence that game devs can't survive on $60 per game because of development costs rather than because their publishers are hemorrhaging money all over the carpet. Plenty of games are still made without using Microtransactions, and they ain't indi titles.

 

[zenspider]

You can't legislate common sense. It won't work. Those people will find some other avenue to waste their money on. That is the responsibility of the individual.

I agree, but "common sense" doesn't apply here. We clearly have bad intuitions in this space, illustrated by how effective these tech manipulations are. I can't imagine anyone goes into an F2P expecting to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Worse, are the full price "pay to win/pay to skin" games. There is no way to know there is no maximum on how much you can spend after you've already purchased what you reasonably would believe is the entire product. You're putting way too much on the consumer to avoid an ambush here.

 

[ConnorDuffy1977]

There is no way to know there is no maximum on how much you can spend after you've already purchased what you reasonably would believe is the entire product.

So what? Where is it written that you're entitled to all the content the developer offers? Common sense certainly does work here. Because if you exercise a little bit of it, you'll be just fine.

 

[zenspider]

So what? Where is it written that you're entitled to all the content the developer offers? Common sense certainly does work here. Because if you exercise a little bit of it, you'll be just fine.

It's implied in the initial transaction.

I don't buy a ticket for the movies and expect to be asked to pay for an additional scene I'd be interested in seeing. It's common sense that I've paid for 100% of what's on offer, and I'm entitled to it.

I think an upfront breakdown of what one is getting with their money, and what one is expected to consider extra is perfectly reasonable, and will allow people to excercise common sense.

 

[somerset]

Orwellian state-based fabian social engineering in Europe (and this includes Russia- Putin was a protege of Tony Blair, as is Clinton) is often excused by saying that natural corporate irresponsibiliy must be curbed *by law*.

Those that fear governmental over-reach in computer gaming are dead right.

Which damns us all. For Big Gaming is currently satanic. Massive publishers owned by the worst crooks employing the best psychologists to screw the customers and their kids. Look at Bethesda. Boy did our *innocence* die there. Once nerd central where everything we thought we loved in good gaming lived. The free mods- oh the free mods.

And then, once Zenimax had hooked enough sucker supporters of Bethesda, they struck- and struck harder than maybe any other publisher but Valve (Valve actually spent a fortune setting up online gambling services aimed at kids, and paid under-aged patsies to promote the gambling on Youtube channels).

Today the worst paid talent in gaming are those former free modders making the *paid* mods for Beth's stores. They work for pennies just so Beth can try to ruin the free modding scene.

MTX and loot-boxes. Two obscenities that should never have appeared in games sold with a realistic price. Yet 50% of the people here seem to justify them- and only a few of these are part of *paid* PR pushes.

But even in games provided for 'free', these mechanisms transform the game into something akin to any other form of *long con*- where the 'robbery' and 'exploitation' mechanisms are far more significant than the gaming mechanisms. Do the wicked have the right to prey on the stupid? If we allow it, what does it cause across time to Greater Society?

Yet in our Orwellian times, when the government via the NSA records *every* phone call made on the planet (yes- sorry guys- this absolutely happens), should we support more governmental control over our lives? To kill loot boxes etc, I'd say "yes" - but for one thing.

The USA is safe, but the plan is to blame the next major 'atrocity' in Britain's sphere of influence (including NZ and Australia) on 'violent' computer games. And then these three nations, followed quickly by most other nations on the earth, will *ban* 'violent' games. In NZ, kids are *forced* to view WW2 atrocites at school- but if they own a copy of the latest atrocity in NZ they go to prison for *ten years*. There's no sanity or morality in the fabian/alt-left controlled West- just unbridled use of Orwellian authority. Banning most popular games wouldn't even give the alt-left a moment's pause.

In many *slave* states of the alt-left, PUBG and Fortnite have already been banned by the stooge governments there. The precedent is set- and it always begins in the cr-p-hole nations first, to test potential fallout by the populace, and perfect responses.

Big Gaming, with their disgusting anti-Human greed programs, play straight into the hands of the Orwellian horrors who run the West. And the alt-left see all game bashing propaganda, reasonable or not, building up grass roots support amongst the hard-of-thinking for draconian anti-game laws.

 

[brian0057]

"EA is evil! Fuck them! Let's ask the government, the only entity more evil and power-hungry than they are, to promote moderation."
Corporations are out of control. I'm sure the government, the bastion of self-control that they're, will solve this.
There's absolutely no way this will backfire on the industry.
No, sir!

 

[brian0057]

So basically while the premise for this bill is good, there is the slippery slope argument. Sigh, I really do want to be rid of MTXs though.

Monkey paw's finger curls.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

If you think the government will stop at just regulating lootboxes and microtransactions, then I have some lovely ocean-front property in Arizona I'd love to talk to you about.

 

[Tygeezy]

I'm old enough to remember when we didn't want the government regulating our video games.

 

[HotPocket69]

Keep the government and that turd with a tie on away from my videogames. Thanks.

 

[RedVIper]

Just because someone will find some other place to waste their money on doesn't mean it's an excuse to not stop shitty business practices that are harming the consumer.

We aren't talking about preventing game devs from making the game's they want. We are talking about putting a stop to a legitimate problem spreading through gaming as a business model. Microtransactions aren't just predatory and worthless practices, they negatively affect game design as well. It shifts the players interest towards spending money to have enjoy more of the game rather than benefitting from actually playing the damn game.

What is the benefit of allowing these practices to go unregulated? What is the downside too, because I'm not seeing one.

Again you're allowing the government to dictate what game designer can and can't make, even if you agree with the measure, what about in the future when they come up with something you don't like?
The benefit is that we keep government out of gaming, EA lost a ton of money because of the backlash they got, so I think the market is already working well.

 

[stickkidsam]

Again you're allowing the government to dictate what game designer can and can't make, even if you agree with the measure, what about in the future when they come up with something you don't like?
The benefit is that we keep government out of gaming, EA lost a ton of money because of the backlash they got, so I think the market is already working well.

I think we are having a misunderstanding.

I am not proposing the government dictate what a game designer can do. I am proposing that the government dictate what business models are acceptable and if so, how that business model is regulated.

Unless I am mistaken, business models have nothing to do with creative freedom. We already have legal restrictions on things like gambling. What makes video games exempt from such a thing?

 

[Ml33tninja]

I understand the dislike but you are not going to see these corporations let up unless they have no choice. The more money for less is too good to pass up