Why do loot boxes provide such a dark compulsion? Psychologists call the principle by which they work on the human mind 'variable rate reinforcement.' "The player is basically working for reward by making a series of responses, but the rewards are delivered unpredictably," says Dr Luke Clark, director at the Center for Gambling Research at the University of British Columbia. "We know that the dopamine system, which is targeted by drugs of abuse, is also very interested in unpredictable rewards. Dopamine cells are most active when there is maximum uncertainty, and the dopamine system responds more to an uncertain reward than the same reward delivered on a predictable basis."
What's more, the effect of variable rate reinforcement is very persistent. Psychologist B.F. Skinner conducted trials during the early 1930s in which he conditioned animals to respond to certain stimuli in closed chambers that became known as Skinner Boxes, and showed that even when the rewards were removed, the subject would continue responding for sometimes hundreds of trials, trying to recreate the circumstances in which it got its reward before.
"Modern video games then amplify this idea by having many overlapping variable ratio schedules," says Clark. "You're trying to level up, advance your avatar, get rare add-ons, build up game currency, all at the same time. What this means is that there is a regular trickle of some kind of reinforcement." Whether you're watching your XP climb up to the next level in Overwatch, or you're collecting scraps in Battlefield 1 by breaking down skins, there's a constant sense of reward leading to reward.
The clever—or insidious—bit is how a loot box is wired into a game, and how it doles out its baubles, keeping a player on the knife-edge between feeling hungry and feeling rewarded. One such system is Battlefield 1’s Battlepacks. Standard Battlepacks are earned by playing multiplayer matches. They used to be randomly awarded, but they recently switched to an Overwatch-like progression bar system for more regular drops. Each one is a guaranteed weapon skin or one of a number of pieces of a unique weapon. So that would seem satisfying, if it wasn’t for the scrap system.
Here, you can turn your skins into scraps an in-game currency called Scraps, which will buy you more Battlepacks. And they’re the only way without spending real money that you can access Superior and Enhanced Battlepacks, two upper tiers which have rather better chances of dropping Distinguished or Legendary weapon skins. The result is a system which ekes out rewards and then asks you to question them and wonder: should you dispose of them in the interests of getting better stuff?
It’s a complex system with a lot to get your head around, and remember: Battlefield 1 is meant to primarily be an FPS, not a lottery game. In other games, loot systems sit more centrally, and few are more central as the card packs in Hearthstone. Since it’s a collectible card game, they’re perhaps so fundamental to the game that it's inaccurate to consider them loot boxes in the same vein as the controversial packs of skins and items added to recent big-budget games like Destiny 2 and Middle-earth: Shadow of War. Still, they're a great example of the loot box's principles.
I think the market should determine whether or not they remain a thing. If people like them, then they'll buy them. If they don't they'll go away on their own. I'm just not into having the state acting as a parent or a nanny unless it is absolutely necessary.
Ah, I see what ideology lies behind these opinions and statements of yours. You believe in the fantasy of the divine guiding hand of the free market, and choose individualism and "freedom" rather than choosing to have some moral responsibility about what happens to people and the society as a whole. You aren't a person fit to make these decisions that affect other people's lives, so I'm going to dismiss everything you say on this topic as a silly, but dangerous ideological fantasy. Just because you were able to quit smoking doesn't mean predatory, unregulated gambling and unregulated lotteries in the form of loot boxes aren't a problem.
[9RS | Combs] Kilana
9RS fleet is recruiting, PM me for more information!
I think the market should determine whether or not they remain a thing. If people like them, then they'll buy them. If they don't they'll go away on their own. I'm just not into having the state acting as a parent or a nanny unless it is absolutely necessary.
Ah, I see what ideology lies behind these opinions and statements of yours. You believe in the fantasy of the divine guiding hand of the free market, and choose individualism and "freedom" rather than choosing to have some moral responsibility about what happens to people and the society as a whole. You aren't a person fit to make these decisions that affect other people's lives, so I'm going to dismiss everything you say on this topic as a silly, but dangerous ideological fantasy. Just because you were able to quit smoking doesn't mean predatory, unregulated gambling and unregulated lotteries in the form of loot boxes aren't a problem.
No I think on important things like healthcare and taking care of the poor the government should definitely exercise their powers. I fully support the social safety net expansions and think we need more. What I don't support is instituting a nanny state that prevents people from making stupid choices because a few people will act irresponsibly.
Awesome job stereotyping someone based on what they say about one thing and assuming it means I'm some crazy neolibertarian nut job. I try not to exist in a world of either/or and rigid adherence to one ideology. I try to do my own thinking and have different opinions on different issues.
Sorry if that makes it harder to pigeonhole me. I haven't been disrespectful and arrogantly dismissive about anything you've said. I'd appreciate the same courtesy. But again, think and write what you wish. I'm not interested in regulating your behavior, childish as it may or may not be.
I think the market should determine whether or not they remain a thing. If people like them, then they'll buy them. If they don't they'll go away on their own. I'm just not into having the state acting as a parent or a nanny unless it is absolutely necessary.
Ah, I see what ideology lies behind these opinions and statements of yours. You believe in the fantasy of the divine guiding hand of the free market, and choose individualism and "freedom" rather than choosing to have some moral responsibility about what happens to people and the society as a whole. You aren't a person fit to make these decisions that affect other people's lives, so I'm going to dismiss everything you say on this topic as a silly, but dangerous ideological fantasy. Just because you were able to quit smoking doesn't mean predatory, unregulated gambling and unregulated lotteries in the form of loot boxes aren't a problem.
No I think on important things like healthcare and taking care of the poor the government should definitely exercise their powers. I fully support the social safety net expansions and think we need more. What I don't support is instituting a nanny state that prevents people from making stupid choices because a few people will act irresponsibly.
Awesome job stereotyping someone based on what they say about one thing and assuming it means I'm some crazy neolibertarian nut job. I try not to exist in a world of either/or and rigid adherence to one ideology. I try to do my own thinking and have different opinions on different issues.
Sorry if that makes it harder to pigeonhole me. I haven't been disrespectful and arrogantly dismissive about anything you've said. I'd appreciate the same courtesy. But again, think and write what you wish. I'm not interested in regulating your behavior, childish as it may or may not be.
He actually got it right. You equated nicotine with hard drugs and gambling...you claimed that only a few people are affected by unregulated gambling. You have a dismissive attitude towards things that are actually very real and very dangerous.
Here's an interesting article from the Daily Mail questioning are loot boxes encouraging children to gamble....
The boxes encourage players to part with more of their money by first making them purchase in-game currency, Dr Jamie Madigan, a psychologist and author of 'Getting Gamers: The Psychology of Video Games and their Impact on the People Who Play Them', told Canadian broadcaster cbc.
'When you decouple the pain of spending money from the pleasure of getting the thing, people tend to spend more money. It sort of obfuscates how much money they're spending,' he said.
Some argue that loot boxes use similar tactics as casinos.
Gabe Zichermann, an expert on addiction to technology, told cbc that loot boxes use 'operant conditioning.'
This means they give out the best rewards at random intervals to stop people from recognising a pattern.
'It is literally, exactly, a slot machine,' he said.
'They're all based on the same basic fundamental behaviour pattern: When people cannot predict how much they're going to get, they often get very focused and fixated on it, and want to do it over and over again, past the point of rationality.'
I think the market should determine whether or not they remain a thing. If people like them, then they'll buy them. If they don't they'll go away on their own. I'm just not into having the state acting as a parent or a nanny unless it is absolutely necessary.
Ah, I see what ideology lies behind these opinions and statements of yours. You believe in the fantasy of the divine guiding hand of the free market, and choose individualism and "freedom" rather than choosing to have some moral responsibility about what happens to people and the society as a whole. You aren't a person fit to make these decisions that affect other people's lives, so I'm going to dismiss everything you say on this topic as a silly, but dangerous ideological fantasy. Just because you were able to quit smoking doesn't mean predatory, unregulated gambling and unregulated lotteries in the form of loot boxes aren't a problem.
No I think on important things like healthcare and taking care of the poor the government should definitely exercise their powers. I fully support the social safety net expansions and think we need more. What I don't support is instituting a nanny state that prevents people from making stupid choices because a few people will act irresponsibly.
Awesome job stereotyping someone based on what they say about one thing and assuming it means I'm some crazy neolibertarian nut job. I try not to exist in a world of either/or and rigid adherence to one ideology. I try to do my own thinking and have different opinions on different issues.
Sorry if that makes it harder to pigeonhole me. I haven't been disrespectful and arrogantly dismissive about anything you've said. I'd appreciate the same courtesy. But again, think and write what you wish. I'm not interested in regulating your behavior, childish as it may or may not be.
He actually got it right. You equated nicotine with hard drugs and gambling...you claimed that only a few people are affected by unregulated gambling. You have a dismissive attitude towards things that are actually very real and very dangerous.
Yes I disagree that loot boxes are dangerous and predatory. I did say that nicotine was very addictive, and if you look at the actual science nicotine is more addictive than many "hard drugs". I used cocaine for a time when I was younger and wanted to party. I've used ecstasy a lot in my youth as well. I was never addicted to either substance or have any of the problems with addiction or dependence the way I did quitting smoking. I also take very high doses of both amphetamine and GHB - both prescribed by a neurologist - on a daily basis to treat my narcolepsy, so I've done my homework about drug dependency and wasn't wrong in what I said.
I did not say the damage or impact that nicotine has on people was equivalent to heroin, although more people do die from smoking than using heroin so it comes down to a definition of danger.
I just think you are making a huge issue out of something that isn't "predatory". If you think games like this are so evil and dangerous what the heck are you doing playing one? I'm sorry you can't understand that not everything is a serious problem or emergency just because some people are making a lot of noise about it. There have been no actual peer-reviewed studies conducted regarding loot boxes or a significant number of substantiated "victims" who have been seriously hurt because of them. Until there is actual evidence that large numbers of people are actually being harmed in real life, there is no actual crisis in desperate need of regulation.
Sensationalist stories are always great for pageviews and click bait. This always happens when something is new and somewhat controversial. I will continue to think this issue is stupid. And you can think whatever you wish. I no longer care about having this conversation. I'm just glad you don't have any say over what happens in the United States or anywhere else. Have a nice day.
@Nicole K I respect your opinion even though it flies in the face of psychologists and experts within the gaming industry itself.This thread is not based on personal opinions or agendas towards DB it's merely following what's happening within the industry itself and is backed by source/articles and psychological assessments from experts and legislators.
If loot boxes remind you of a slot machine or lottery ticket, you’re not alone. Just like traditional gamblers, players who acquire loot boxes pay money for an uncertain outcome. Unlike traditional gamblers, there is no strict government regulation to protect them.
David G. Schwartz is the director of the University of Nevada Las Vegas’s Center for Gaming Research and the author of numerous books on the history of gambling. He offered his thoughts as an individual researcher and stressed that he did not speak for his organization.
“For something to be considered gambling, the classic definition [is] risking something of value on an unknown outcome in hope of getting a payoff,” he said. “With a loot box, it’s pretty much that.”
Les Bernal, national director of Stop Predatory Gambling, which researches the gambling industry and advocates for regulations to prevent gambling addiction, agreed. “These game publishers are blatantly exploiting minors, viewing them as an easy way to boost profits,” he said.
Bernal worries that the big video game publishers are targeting a population that is highly vulnerable to gambling addiction. “In the commercial gambling business in general, the way you make your money is on a small amount of players — those players who are financially desperate, and those players who are addicted,” he said. “Young people are more susceptible to gambling problems. They’re at a point in their development where being exposed to commercial gambling has a devastating impact.”
Emil Hodzic is a psychologist who runs the Sydney-based Video Game Addiction Clinic, which each year takes roughly 1,000 clients facing psychological and physical impairments — largely adolescents, but also adults.
@Nicole K I respect your opinion even though it flies in the face of psychologists and experts within the gaming industry itself.This thread is not based on personal opinions or agendas towards DB it's merely following what's happening within the industry itself and is backed by source/articles and psychological assessments from experts and legislators.
If loot boxes remind you of a slot machine or lottery ticket, you’re not alone. Just like traditional gamblers, players who acquire loot boxes pay money for an uncertain outcome. Unlike traditional gamblers, there is no strict government regulation to protect them.
David G. Schwartz is the director of the University of Nevada Las Vegas’s Center for Gaming Research and the author of numerous books on the history of gambling. He offered his thoughts as an individual researcher and stressed that he did not speak for his organization.
“For something to be considered gambling, the classic definition [is] risking something of value on an unknown outcome in hope of getting a payoff,” he said. “With a loot box, it’s pretty much that.”
Les Bernal, national director of Stop Predatory Gambling, which researches the gambling industry and advocates for regulations to prevent gambling addiction, agreed. “These game publishers are blatantly exploiting minors, viewing them as an easy way to boost profits,” he said.
Bernal worries that the big video game publishers are targeting a population that is highly vulnerable to gambling addiction. “In the commercial gambling business in general, the way you make your money is on a small amount of players — those players who are financially desperate, and those players who are addicted,” he said. “Young people are more susceptible to gambling problems. They’re at a point in their development where being exposed to commercial gambling has a devastating impact.”
Emil Hodzic is a psychologist who runs the Sydney-based Video Game Addiction Clinic, which each year takes roughly 1,000 clients facing psychological and physical impairments — largely adolescents, but also adults.
He offered his thoughts as an individual researcher and stressed that he did not speak for his organization.
When they do actual peer-reviewed academic research I will take it seriously. "Offering thoughts" expert or not is not evidence or anything more than his opinion. It's fine that he holds this opinion, but until there is data that demonstrates there is a problem and actual victims this is just hyperbole as far as I'm concerned. You can find "experts" on all sides of any given issue. What matters is what actual valid data shows. Until that is produced this remains a matter of opinion. It is in no way settled. I never said there aren't similarities to gambling but skee ball and collecting baseball cards have similarities to gambling.
I think the market should determine whether or not they remain a thing. If people like them, then they'll buy them. If they don't they'll go away on their own. I'm just not into having the state acting as a parent or a nanny unless it is absolutely necessary.
Ah, I see what ideology lies behind these opinions and statements of yours. You believe in the fantasy of the divine guiding hand of the free market, and choose individualism and "freedom" rather than choosing to have some moral responsibility about what happens to people and the society as a whole. You aren't a person fit to make these decisions that affect other people's lives, so I'm going to dismiss everything you say on this topic as a silly, but dangerous ideological fantasy. Just because you were able to quit smoking doesn't mean predatory, unregulated gambling and unregulated lotteries in the form of loot boxes aren't a problem.
No I think on important things like healthcare and taking care of the poor the government should definitely exercise their powers. I fully support the social safety net expansions and think we need more. What I don't support is instituting a nanny state that prevents people from making stupid choices because a few people will act irresponsibly.
Awesome job stereotyping someone based on what they say about one thing and assuming it means I'm some crazy neolibertarian nut job. I try not to exist in a world of either/or and rigid adherence to one ideology. I try to do my own thinking and have different opinions on different issues.
Sorry if that makes it harder to pigeonhole me. I haven't been disrespectful and arrogantly dismissive about anything you've said. I'd appreciate the same courtesy. But again, think and write what you wish. I'm not interested in regulating your behavior, childish as it may or may not be.
He actually got it right. You equated nicotine with hard drugs and gambling...you claimed that only a few people are affected by unregulated gambling. You have a dismissive attitude towards things that are actually very real and very dangerous.
Yes I disagree that loot boxes are dangerous and predatory. I did say that nicotine was very addictive, and if you look at the actual science nicotine is more addictive than many "hard drugs". I used cocaine for a time when I was younger and wanted to party. I've used ecstasy a lot in my youth as well. I was never addicted to either substance or have any of the problems with addiction or dependence the way I did quitting smoking. I also take very high doses of both amphetamine and GHB - both prescribed by a neurologist - on a daily basis to treat my narcolepsy, so I've done my homework about drug dependency and wasn't wrong in what I said.
I did not say the damage or impact that nicotine has on people was equivalent to heroin, although more people do die from smoking than using heroin so it comes down to a definition of danger.
I just think you are making a huge issue out of something that isn't "predatory". If you think games like this are so evil and dangerous what the heck are you doing playing one? I'm sorry you can't understand that not everything is a serious problem or emergency just because some people are making a lot of noise about it. There have been no actual peer-reviewed studies conducted regarding loot boxes or a significant number of substantiated "victims" who have been seriously hurt because of them. Until there is actual evidence that large numbers of people are actually being harmed in real life, there is no actual crisis in desperate need of regulation.
Sensationalist stories are always great for pageviews and click bait. This always happens when something is new and somewhat controversial. I will continue to think this issue is stupid. And you can think whatever you wish. I no longer care about having this conversation. I'm just glad you don't have any say over what happens in the United States or anywhere else. Have a nice day.
"If you think games like this are so evil and dangerous what the heck are you doing playing one?"
FOR MINORS! Last time I checked, i'm not a minor....I use my own money to do whatever i choose. Maybe you were educated that minors have the same degree of maturity in making decisions, but not the rest of the rational world.
"I'm just glad you don't have any say over what happens in the United States or anywhere else."
I'm more than glad that I don't live there... I would've left a long time ago!
When they do actual peer-reviewed academic research I will take it seriously. "Offering thoughts" expert or not is not evidence or anything more than his opinion. It's fine that he holds this opinion, but until there is data that demonstrates there is a problem and actual victims this is just hyperbole as far as I'm concerned. You can find "experts" on all sides of any given issue. What matters is what actual valid data shows. Until that is produced this remains a matter of opinion. It is in no way settled. I never said there aren't similarities to gambling but skee ball and collecting baseball cards have similarities to gambling.
There is a body of research on the subject, unfortunately most of it behind a paywall. Results so far are inconclusive, but mostly the image I got was that there is a group specifically vulnerable to gambling in video games, and that is adolescent males from culturally diverse backgrounds (the definition of latter remained somewhat unclear to me). Also it seems likely that being subjected to simulated gambling from an early age can increase gambling related problems later. It doesn't seem unreasonable to draw a conclusion that underage players are a population vulnerable to online activities simulating gambling, and their access to simulated gambling should be restricted and regulated.
Some of the articles I looked at, in case you want to search for them:
Migration from social casino games to gambling: Motivations and
characteristics of gamers who gamble (Computers in Human Behavior
Volume 63, October 2016, Pages 59-67)
Investigating relationships between video gaming, spectating esports, and gambling (Computers in Human Behavior Volume 80, March 2018, Pages 344-353)
A review of Australian classification practices for commercial video games featuring simulated gambling (BMC Public Health. 2017 Nov 14)
[9RS | Combs] Kilana
9RS fleet is recruiting, PM me for more information!
When they do actual peer-reviewed academic research I will take it seriously. "Offering thoughts" expert or not is not evidence or anything more than his opinion. It's fine that he holds this opinion, but until there is data that demonstrates there is a problem and actual victims this is just hyperbole as far as I'm concerned. You can find "experts" on all sides of any given issue. What matters is what actual valid data shows. Until that is produced this remains a matter of opinion. It is in no way settled. I never said there aren't similarities to gambling but skee ball and collecting baseball cards have similarities to gambling.
There is a body of research on the subject, unfortunately most of it behind a paywall. Results so far are inconclusive, but mostly the image I got was that there is a group specifically vulnerable to gambling in video games, and that is adolescent males from culturally diverse backgrounds (the definition of latter remained somewhat unclear to me). Also it seems likely that being subjected to simulated gambling from an early age can increase gambling related problems later. It doesn't seem unreasonable to draw a conclusion that underage players are a population vulnerable to online activities simulating gambling, and their access to simulated gambling should be restricted and regulated.
Some of the articles I looked at, in case you want to search for them:
Migration from social casino games to gambling: Motivations and
characteristics of gamers who gamble (Computers in Human Behavior
Volume 63, October 2016, Pages 59-67)
Investigating relationships between video gaming, spectating esports, and gambling (Computers in Human Behavior Volume 80, March 2018, Pages 344-353)
A review of Australian classification practices for commercial video games featuring simulated gambling (BMC Public Health. 2017 Nov 14)
Those are all for actual gambling or are articles and not actual studies with data to back them up. Articles are not peer-reviewed studies. They need to actually study loot boxes specifically to determine to what extent there is a problem. Again, I think there are plenty of parental control options that already exist and it should be up to parents to decide what's appropriate for their kids. Just because the potential for a problem exists doesn't mean it's real. And by the way, most of the "experts" you've been quoting are anti-gambling activists promoting an agenda. When you operate an organization like "Stop Predatory Gambling" that doesn't exactly make you an unbiased source of information does it?
Those are all for actual gambling or are articles and not actual studies with data to back them up. Articles are not peer-reviewed studies. They need to actually study loot boxes specifically to determine to what extent there is a problem. Again, I think there are plenty of parental control options that already exist and it should be up to parents to decide what's appropriate for their kids. Just because the potential for a problem exists doesn't mean it's real. And by the way, most of the "experts" you've been quoting are anti-gambling activists promoting an agenda. When you operate an organization like "Stop Predatory Gambling" that doesn't exactly make you an unbiased source of information does it?
Lol, I was about to call it: upon seeing the research data that you requested, you are going to say "that data is not good enough for me". Loot boxes haven't been studied specifically, because as a phenomenon they are relatively new, for the speed at which academia operates anyway. One of those articles does address loot boxes, another games that involve mechanics similar to loot boxes targeted to children, specifically Pokemon. You can of course keep making your argument more and more granular and demand more and more specific proof in order to make it look like you are right, it's a well known backpedaling tactic.
I haven't quoted any experts, you may be mixing me up with another poster, and like I said, there is a body of research that you can access via the references of those articles. But I have a feeling you won't.
[9RS | Combs] Kilana
9RS fleet is recruiting, PM me for more information!
Those are all for actual gambling or are articles and not actual studies with data to back them up. Articles are not peer-reviewed studies. They need to actually study loot boxes specifically to determine to what extent there is a problem. Again, I think there are plenty of parental control options that already exist and it should be up to parents to decide what's appropriate for their kids. Just because the potential for a problem exists doesn't mean it's real. And by the way, most of the "experts" you've been quoting are anti-gambling activists promoting an agenda. When you operate an organization like "Stop Predatory Gambling" that doesn't exactly make you an unbiased source of information does it?
Lol, I was about to call it: upon seeing the research data that you requested, you are going to say "that data is not good enough for me". Loot boxes haven't been studied specifically, because as a phenomenon they are relatively new, for the speed at which academia operates anyway. One of those articles does address loot boxes, another games that involve mechanics similar to loot boxes targeted to children, specifically Pokemon. You can of course keep making your argument more and more granular and demand more and more specific proof in order to make it look like you are right, it's a well known backpedaling tactic.
I haven't quoted any experts, you may be mixing me up with another poster, and like I said, there is a body of research that you can access via the references of those articles. But I have a feeling you won't.
I'm not saying there's not a population of people who can't handle this type of thing. I'm saying it's too new of a thing to have any data to conclusively know the scale and impact of the problem. I just think we should wait until there is actual evidence that large numbers of people are actually being taken advantage of. That data simply does not exist yet.
I'd prefer not to regulate things because they're similar to other things and that makes us think there's a problem. I'd like to have policies that are responding to clear and convincing evidence. And because this a new thing, that evidence does not exist. When and if it does, I'd be more open to regulations. Right now I think it's a lot of activists making noise and making unsubstantiated claims.
I'm sorry if i mixed you up with the previous posters who simply cut and pasted articles from various news sources that quoted a lot of anti-gambling activists. You did provide actual academic literature, and I do respect that as more credible than activist experts. I'd just prefer to wait until we have actual studies that define the scope, scale, and impact of the problem before we jump to making policies.
Those are all for actual gambling or are articles and not actual studies with data to back them up. Articles are not peer-reviewed studies. They need to actually study loot boxes specifically to determine to what extent there is a problem. Again, I think there are plenty of parental control options that already exist and it should be up to parents to decide what's appropriate for their kids. Just because the potential for a problem exists doesn't mean it's real. And by the way, most of the "experts" you've been quoting are anti-gambling activists promoting an agenda. When you operate an organization like "Stop Predatory Gambling" that doesn't exactly make you an unbiased source of information does it?
Lol, I was about to call it: upon seeing the research data that you requested, you are going to say "that data is not good enough for me". Loot boxes haven't been studied specifically, because as a phenomenon they are relatively new, for the speed at which academia operates anyway. One of those articles does address loot boxes, another games that involve mechanics similar to loot boxes targeted to children, specifically Pokemon. You can of course keep making your argument more and more granular and demand more and more specific proof in order to make it look like you are right, it's a well known backpedaling tactic.
I haven't quoted any experts, you may be mixing me up with another poster, and like I said, there is a body of research that you can access via the references of those articles. But I have a feeling you won't.
I'm not saying there's not a population of people who can't handle this type of thing. I'm saying it's too new of a thing to have any data to conclusively know the scale and impact of the problem. I just think we should wait until there is actual evidence that large numbers of people are actually being taken advantage of. That data simply does not exist yet.
I'd prefer not to regulate things because they're similar to other things and that makes us think there's a problem. I'd like to have policies that are responding to clear and convincing evidence. And because this a new thing, that evidence does not exist. When and if it does, I'd be more open to regulations. Right now I think it's a lot of activists making noise and making unsubstantiated claims.
I'm sorry if i mixed you up with the previous posters who simply cut and pasted articles from various news sources that quoted a lot of anti-gambling activists. You did provide actual academic literature, and I do respect that as more credible than activist experts. I'd just prefer to wait until we have actual studies that define the scope, scale, and impact of the problem before we jump to making policies.
Nobody is saying loot boxes should be removed from games entirely only removed from children your argument is about parental controls and I agree however if you go by the Pan European Gaming Information (PEGI rating)
Using Timelines as an example it clearly states on the app it's simulated gambling with a PEGI 12 rating which requires "medium parental guidance" at launch last year the game had a PEGI 7 rating even though you insist it's not gambling not all kids have credit cards or access to them but they do have access to iTunes and google play cards in local shops and shopping centres and probably will receive some this Christmas off 🎅🏻
Simulated gambling should not be in a game aimed at 12 year olds that's not the Game developer's fault that's PEGI and this is why new laws are being looked at.
Well in the United States, the ESRB has unequivocally stated the exact opposite and does not consider it gambling. You can play the game without spending a cent, and if some kid wants to spend his Christmas money on the game I have no issues with it, provided his or her parents permit it.
Well in the United States, the ESRB has unequivocally stated the exact opposite and does not consider it gambling. You can play the game without spending a cent, and if some kid wants to spend his Christmas money on the game I have no issues with it, provided his or her parents permit it.
Different laws in different countries which is what this thread is about if you go back to page 1and see it's started in Belgium also Netherlands and Germany if America thinks it's ok for 10 year olds to gamble/spend cash on lootboxes I've no issue with that the laws of the us don't apply here or in the other European states i'm merely stating that Europe is starting the process of writing legislation to change simulated gambling aged towards children and a senator from Hawaii is also looking into doing the same for the us.
Personal opinions aside whether you or I are in agreement makes no difference the ball is already in motion it will take at least 2years to become law and once it does if game companies want their games to sell in these regions they have to follow local and European laws.
It's a state senator in Hawaii, not a senator from Hawaii. That means he's only a state government legislator in that state. I am fairly certain people are confusing that with the federal legislature that makes laws for the entire country.
The issue is really not gaining very much attention in America compared to Europe.
And if I'm not mistaken the UK has a similar policy as the US on this issue, so it isn't like everyone except the US is on one side of the issue.
It's a state senator in Hawaii, not a senator from Hawaii. That means he's only a state government legislator in that state. I am fairly certain people are confusing that with the federal legislature that makes laws for the entire country.
The issue is really not gaining very much attention in America compared to Europe.
And if I'm not mistaken the UK has a similar policy as the US on this issue, so it isn't like everyone except the US is on one side of the issue.
And Hawaii is known for being noisy nutbags with no meaningful influence.
It's a state senator in Hawaii, not a senator from Hawaii. That means he's only a state government legislator in that state. I am fairly certain people are confusing that with the federal legislature that makes laws for the entire country.
The issue is really not gaining very much attention in America compared to Europe.
And if I'm not mistaken the UK has a similar policy as the US on this issue, so it isn't like everyone except the US is on one side of the issue.
Given the current state of Congress, a state legislature is more likely to pass a law than Congress. Then the game would have to either comply with the law or find a way to block users from playing in that state.
Loot boxes have brought the video game industry to a crossroads, and the path taken now will shape the future of the industry in profound ways.
It could take months or years before a final ruling is settled in any jurisdiction, and even then, a global patchwork of differing laws and rulings will need to be reckoned with. But the implications are clear. The law has always lagged behind technology, but sooner or later it’s going to catch up, and tech companies that are used to doing as they please will suddenly have to figure out what life after regulation looks like.
Previously, most defenders of the loot box economy and its associated trading websites said that since real currency wasn’t being won, no real gambling was taking place. But according to some legal experts, that isn’t strictly true.
In a recent episode of his Robot Congress podcast, prominent video game attorney Ryan Morrison was interviewing another lawyer, Marc Whipple, with experience in the gaming industry. Whipple said gambling, in “most jurisdictions,” was judged to be such if it had three critical elements: “Consideration, which means you have to pay something to play. Chance, which means there has to be something outside your control that determines the outcome of the game. And a prize. And of course, a prize is something, anything of value.”
Whipple added, with deliberate clarity: “As close as I’m ever getting to giving actual legal advice to strangers on the internet who are not my clients is this: no, it does not have to be money. It has to be something of value, period.”
This discussion neatly lays out where the legal battle lines actually are. The issue has come up a handful of times in American courts, but the industry won those cases because digital objects were determined to have no value. In Whipple’s mind, this was because the judges were not “technologically literate,” and “did not understand what was going on,” instead seeing this very lucrative form of commerce as nothing more than “blips on a screen.”
The answer to this question — whether digital matter should be considered as real as what’s in your pocketbook — affects every aspect of the tech industry. If the virtual is not real, rules are irrelevant; if it is, then we’re badly in need of a digital social contract. With the events of the last few years — from a president’s tweets moving markets, to discourse around online harassment — we’re recognizing, slowly, that what happens online is, for all intents and purposes, real. We cannot simply switch it off.
It's a state senator in Hawaii, not a senator from Hawaii. That means he's only a state government legislator in that state. I am fairly certain people are confusing that with the federal legislature that makes laws for the entire country.
The issue is really not gaining very much attention in America compared to Europe.
And if I'm not mistaken the UK has a similar policy as the US on this issue, so it isn't like everyone except the US is on one side of the issue.
Given the current state of Congress, a state legislature is more likely to pass a law than Congress. Then the game would have to either comply with the law or find a way to block users from playing in that state.
Imagine previously spending thousands of dollars on the game and it's now no longer available in that state/country 😳
Comments
Why do loot boxes provide such a dark compulsion? Psychologists call the principle by which they work on the human mind 'variable rate reinforcement.' "The player is basically working for reward by making a series of responses, but the rewards are delivered unpredictably," says Dr Luke Clark, director at the Center for Gambling Research at the University of British Columbia. "We know that the dopamine system, which is targeted by drugs of abuse, is also very interested in unpredictable rewards. Dopamine cells are most active when there is maximum uncertainty, and the dopamine system responds more to an uncertain reward than the same reward delivered on a predictable basis."
What's more, the effect of variable rate reinforcement is very persistent. Psychologist B.F. Skinner conducted trials during the early 1930s in which he conditioned animals to respond to certain stimuli in closed chambers that became known as Skinner Boxes, and showed that even when the rewards were removed, the subject would continue responding for sometimes hundreds of trials, trying to recreate the circumstances in which it got its reward before.
"Modern video games then amplify this idea by having many overlapping variable ratio schedules," says Clark. "You're trying to level up, advance your avatar, get rare add-ons, build up game currency, all at the same time. What this means is that there is a regular trickle of some kind of reinforcement." Whether you're watching your XP climb up to the next level in Overwatch, or you're collecting scraps in Battlefield 1 by breaking down skins, there's a constant sense of reward leading to reward.
The clever—or insidious—bit is how a loot box is wired into a game, and how it doles out its baubles, keeping a player on the knife-edge between feeling hungry and feeling rewarded. One such system is Battlefield 1’s Battlepacks. Standard Battlepacks are earned by playing multiplayer matches. They used to be randomly awarded, but they recently switched to an Overwatch-like progression bar system for more regular drops. Each one is a guaranteed weapon skin or one of a number of pieces of a unique weapon. So that would seem satisfying, if it wasn’t for the scrap system.
Here, you can turn your skins into scraps an in-game currency called Scraps, which will buy you more Battlepacks. And they’re the only way without spending real money that you can access Superior and Enhanced Battlepacks, two upper tiers which have rather better chances of dropping Distinguished or Legendary weapon skins. The result is a system which ekes out rewards and then asks you to question them and wonder: should you dispose of them in the interests of getting better stuff?
It’s a complex system with a lot to get your head around, and remember: Battlefield 1 is meant to primarily be an FPS, not a lottery game. In other games, loot systems sit more centrally, and few are more central as the card packs in Hearthstone. Since it’s a collectible card game, they’re perhaps so fundamental to the game that it's inaccurate to consider them loot boxes in the same vein as the controversial packs of skins and items added to recent big-budget games like Destiny 2 and Middle-earth: Shadow of War. Still, they're a great example of the loot box's principles.
Source:http://www.pcgamer.com/behind-the-addictive-psychology-and-seductive-art-of-loot-boxes/
Ah, I see what ideology lies behind these opinions and statements of yours. You believe in the fantasy of the divine guiding hand of the free market, and choose individualism and "freedom" rather than choosing to have some moral responsibility about what happens to people and the society as a whole. You aren't a person fit to make these decisions that affect other people's lives, so I'm going to dismiss everything you say on this topic as a silly, but dangerous ideological fantasy. Just because you were able to quit smoking doesn't mean predatory, unregulated gambling and unregulated lotteries in the form of loot boxes aren't a problem.
9RS fleet is recruiting, PM me for more information!
No I think on important things like healthcare and taking care of the poor the government should definitely exercise their powers. I fully support the social safety net expansions and think we need more. What I don't support is instituting a nanny state that prevents people from making stupid choices because a few people will act irresponsibly.
Awesome job stereotyping someone based on what they say about one thing and assuming it means I'm some crazy neolibertarian nut job. I try not to exist in a world of either/or and rigid adherence to one ideology. I try to do my own thinking and have different opinions on different issues.
Sorry if that makes it harder to pigeonhole me. I haven't been disrespectful and arrogantly dismissive about anything you've said. I'd appreciate the same courtesy. But again, think and write what you wish. I'm not interested in regulating your behavior, childish as it may or may not be.
He actually got it right. You equated nicotine with hard drugs and gambling...you claimed that only a few people are affected by unregulated gambling. You have a dismissive attitude towards things that are actually very real and very dangerous.
The boxes encourage players to part with more of their money by first making them purchase in-game currency, Dr Jamie Madigan, a psychologist and author of 'Getting Gamers: The Psychology of Video Games and their Impact on the People Who Play Them', told Canadian broadcaster cbc.
'When you decouple the pain of spending money from the pleasure of getting the thing, people tend to spend more money. It sort of obfuscates how much money they're spending,' he said.
Some argue that loot boxes use similar tactics as casinos.
Gabe Zichermann, an expert on addiction to technology, told cbc that loot boxes use 'operant conditioning.'
This means they give out the best rewards at random intervals to stop people from recognising a pattern.
'It is literally, exactly, a slot machine,' he said.
'They're all based on the same basic fundamental behaviour pattern: When people cannot predict how much they're going to get, they often get very focused and fixated on it, and want to do it over and over again, past the point of rationality.'
Source:https://www.google.ie/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5031247/amp/Are-video-game-loot-boxes-encouraging-children-gamble.html
Yes I disagree that loot boxes are dangerous and predatory. I did say that nicotine was very addictive, and if you look at the actual science nicotine is more addictive than many "hard drugs". I used cocaine for a time when I was younger and wanted to party. I've used ecstasy a lot in my youth as well. I was never addicted to either substance or have any of the problems with addiction or dependence the way I did quitting smoking. I also take very high doses of both amphetamine and GHB - both prescribed by a neurologist - on a daily basis to treat my narcolepsy, so I've done my homework about drug dependency and wasn't wrong in what I said.
I did not say the damage or impact that nicotine has on people was equivalent to heroin, although more people do die from smoking than using heroin so it comes down to a definition of danger.
I just think you are making a huge issue out of something that isn't "predatory". If you think games like this are so evil and dangerous what the heck are you doing playing one? I'm sorry you can't understand that not everything is a serious problem or emergency just because some people are making a lot of noise about it. There have been no actual peer-reviewed studies conducted regarding loot boxes or a significant number of substantiated "victims" who have been seriously hurt because of them. Until there is actual evidence that large numbers of people are actually being harmed in real life, there is no actual crisis in desperate need of regulation.
Sensationalist stories are always great for pageviews and click bait. This always happens when something is new and somewhat controversial. I will continue to think this issue is stupid. And you can think whatever you wish. I no longer care about having this conversation. I'm just glad you don't have any say over what happens in the United States or anywhere else. Have a nice day.
If loot boxes remind you of a slot machine or lottery ticket, you’re not alone. Just like traditional gamblers, players who acquire loot boxes pay money for an uncertain outcome. Unlike traditional gamblers, there is no strict government regulation to protect them.
David G. Schwartz is the director of the University of Nevada Las Vegas’s Center for Gaming Research and the author of numerous books on the history of gambling. He offered his thoughts as an individual researcher and stressed that he did not speak for his organization.
“For something to be considered gambling, the classic definition [is] risking something of value on an unknown outcome in hope of getting a payoff,” he said. “With a loot box, it’s pretty much that.”
Les Bernal, national director of Stop Predatory Gambling, which researches the gambling industry and advocates for regulations to prevent gambling addiction, agreed. “These game publishers are blatantly exploiting minors, viewing them as an easy way to boost profits,” he said.
Bernal worries that the big video game publishers are targeting a population that is highly vulnerable to gambling addiction. “In the commercial gambling business in general, the way you make your money is on a small amount of players — those players who are financially desperate, and those players who are addicted,” he said. “Young people are more susceptible to gambling problems. They’re at a point in their development where being exposed to commercial gambling has a devastating impact.”
Emil Hodzic is a psychologist who runs the Sydney-based Video Game Addiction Clinic, which each year takes roughly 1,000 clients facing psychological and physical impairments — largely adolescents, but also adults.
Source: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/08/video-games-loot-boxes-gambling-gaming-star-wars-battlefront-2/
He offered his thoughts as an individual researcher and stressed that he did not speak for his organization.
When they do actual peer-reviewed academic research I will take it seriously. "Offering thoughts" expert or not is not evidence or anything more than his opinion. It's fine that he holds this opinion, but until there is data that demonstrates there is a problem and actual victims this is just hyperbole as far as I'm concerned. You can find "experts" on all sides of any given issue. What matters is what actual valid data shows. Until that is produced this remains a matter of opinion. It is in no way settled. I never said there aren't similarities to gambling but skee ball and collecting baseball cards have similarities to gambling.
"If you think games like this are so evil and dangerous what the heck are you doing playing one?"
FOR MINORS! Last time I checked, i'm not a minor....I use my own money to do whatever i choose. Maybe you were educated that minors have the same degree of maturity in making decisions, but not the rest of the rational world.
"I'm just glad you don't have any say over what happens in the United States or anywhere else."
I'm more than glad that I don't live there... I would've left a long time ago!
There is a body of research on the subject, unfortunately most of it behind a paywall. Results so far are inconclusive, but mostly the image I got was that there is a group specifically vulnerable to gambling in video games, and that is adolescent males from culturally diverse backgrounds (the definition of latter remained somewhat unclear to me). Also it seems likely that being subjected to simulated gambling from an early age can increase gambling related problems later. It doesn't seem unreasonable to draw a conclusion that underage players are a population vulnerable to online activities simulating gambling, and their access to simulated gambling should be restricted and regulated.
Some of the articles I looked at, in case you want to search for them:
Migration from social casino games to gambling: Motivations and
characteristics of gamers who gamble (Computers in Human Behavior
Volume 63, October 2016, Pages 59-67)
Investigating relationships between video gaming, spectating esports, and gambling (Computers in Human Behavior Volume 80, March 2018, Pages 344-353)
A review of Australian classification practices for commercial video games featuring simulated gambling (BMC Public Health. 2017 Nov 14)
9RS fleet is recruiting, PM me for more information!
Those are all for actual gambling or are articles and not actual studies with data to back them up. Articles are not peer-reviewed studies. They need to actually study loot boxes specifically to determine to what extent there is a problem. Again, I think there are plenty of parental control options that already exist and it should be up to parents to decide what's appropriate for their kids. Just because the potential for a problem exists doesn't mean it's real. And by the way, most of the "experts" you've been quoting are anti-gambling activists promoting an agenda. When you operate an organization like "Stop Predatory Gambling" that doesn't exactly make you an unbiased source of information does it?
Lol, I was about to call it: upon seeing the research data that you requested, you are going to say "that data is not good enough for me". Loot boxes haven't been studied specifically, because as a phenomenon they are relatively new, for the speed at which academia operates anyway. One of those articles does address loot boxes, another games that involve mechanics similar to loot boxes targeted to children, specifically Pokemon. You can of course keep making your argument more and more granular and demand more and more specific proof in order to make it look like you are right, it's a well known backpedaling tactic.
I haven't quoted any experts, you may be mixing me up with another poster, and like I said, there is a body of research that you can access via the references of those articles. But I have a feeling you won't.
9RS fleet is recruiting, PM me for more information!
I'm not saying there's not a population of people who can't handle this type of thing. I'm saying it's too new of a thing to have any data to conclusively know the scale and impact of the problem. I just think we should wait until there is actual evidence that large numbers of people are actually being taken advantage of. That data simply does not exist yet.
I'd prefer not to regulate things because they're similar to other things and that makes us think there's a problem. I'd like to have policies that are responding to clear and convincing evidence. And because this a new thing, that evidence does not exist. When and if it does, I'd be more open to regulations. Right now I think it's a lot of activists making noise and making unsubstantiated claims.
I'm sorry if i mixed you up with the previous posters who simply cut and pasted articles from various news sources that quoted a lot of anti-gambling activists. You did provide actual academic literature, and I do respect that as more credible than activist experts. I'd just prefer to wait until we have actual studies that define the scope, scale, and impact of the problem before we jump to making policies.
Nobody is saying loot boxes should be removed from games entirely only removed from children your argument is about parental controls and I agree however if you go by the Pan European Gaming Information (PEGI rating)
Using Timelines as an example it clearly states on the app it's simulated gambling with a PEGI 12 rating which requires "medium parental guidance" at launch last year the game had a PEGI 7 rating even though you insist it's not gambling not all kids have credit cards or access to them but they do have access to iTunes and google play cards in local shops and shopping centres and probably will receive some this Christmas off 🎅🏻
Simulated gambling should not be in a game aimed at 12 year olds that's not the Game developer's fault that's PEGI and this is why new laws are being looked at.
Well in the United States, the ESRB has unequivocally stated the exact opposite and does not consider it gambling. You can play the game without spending a cent, and if some kid wants to spend his Christmas money on the game I have no issues with it, provided his or her parents permit it.
Different laws in different countries which is what this thread is about if you go back to page 1and see it's started in Belgium also Netherlands and Germany if America thinks it's ok for 10 year olds to gamble/spend cash on lootboxes I've no issue with that the laws of the us don't apply here or in the other European states i'm merely stating that Europe is starting the process of writing legislation to change simulated gambling aged towards children and a senator from Hawaii is also looking into doing the same for the us.
Personal opinions aside whether you or I are in agreement makes no difference the ball is already in motion it will take at least 2years to become law and once it does if game companies want their games to sell in these regions they have to follow local and European laws.
The issue is really not gaining very much attention in America compared to Europe.
And if I'm not mistaken the UK has a similar policy as the US on this issue, so it isn't like everyone except the US is on one side of the issue.
And Hawaii is known for being noisy nutbags with no meaningful influence.
Given the current state of Congress, a state legislature is more likely to pass a law than Congress. Then the game would have to either comply with the law or find a way to block users from playing in that state.
It could take months or years before a final ruling is settled in any jurisdiction, and even then, a global patchwork of differing laws and rulings will need to be reckoned with. But the implications are clear. The law has always lagged behind technology, but sooner or later it’s going to catch up, and tech companies that are used to doing as they please will suddenly have to figure out what life after regulation looks like.
Previously, most defenders of the loot box economy and its associated trading websites said that since real currency wasn’t being won, no real gambling was taking place. But according to some legal experts, that isn’t strictly true.
In a recent episode of his Robot Congress podcast, prominent video game attorney Ryan Morrison was interviewing another lawyer, Marc Whipple, with experience in the gaming industry. Whipple said gambling, in “most jurisdictions,” was judged to be such if it had three critical elements: “Consideration, which means you have to pay something to play. Chance, which means there has to be something outside your control that determines the outcome of the game. And a prize. And of course, a prize is something, anything of value.”
Whipple added, with deliberate clarity: “As close as I’m ever getting to giving actual legal advice to strangers on the internet who are not my clients is this: no, it does not have to be money. It has to be something of value, period.”
This discussion neatly lays out where the legal battle lines actually are. The issue has come up a handful of times in American courts, but the industry won those cases because digital objects were determined to have no value. In Whipple’s mind, this was because the judges were not “technologically literate,” and “did not understand what was going on,” instead seeing this very lucrative form of commerce as nothing more than “blips on a screen.”
The answer to this question — whether digital matter should be considered as real as what’s in your pocketbook — affects every aspect of the tech industry. If the virtual is not real, rules are irrelevant; if it is, then we’re badly in need of a digital social contract. With the events of the last few years — from a president’s tweets moving markets, to discourse around online harassment — we’re recognizing, slowly, that what happens online is, for all intents and purposes, real. We cannot simply switch it off.
Source:https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/12/19/16783136/loot-boxes-video-games-gambling-legal
Imagine previously spending thousands of dollars on the game and it's now no longer available in that state/country 😳