[anyfoo]

I don't think anyone proposed imposing regulation on the consumer, only on the provider. There is a lot of regulation on that side already, and some of it is actually rather welcomed.

For example, if I compare the amount of advertisement that TV channels are allowed to show in Germany vs. in the US, I am certainly for regulation... (back when I still cared about television)

[zaarn]

I agree on that comparison. Since I regularly consume an american TV show as part of a community, I get to see the ads too. For the 20 minute episode, there is 10 minutes of ads, just over 1 minute each 2 or 3 minutes, roughly.

The same episode on german TV has three ad interruptions. One 5 minute one in the middle, a overlay ad about 5 minutes before the end and a zoom out during the credits showing ads to the side (the later two circumvent the normal limit of ads per hour and spacing requirements.)

[feocco]

I think it's a poor comparison. Equating ads to playtime? Sure you can tangentially involve DLC as an "ad" but it's a big stretch.

Regulating length of ads is silly too. You can just purchase the show and watch it with no ads. Or don't watch the channel. Or watch different content.

Seems the above comments are generalizing to justify controlling media consumption. Regardless of which side regulation comes down on. I see a very slippery slope.

[anyfoo]

I don't see why regulating the length of ads is silly at all. Several countries have been doing it for many decades. It works really well and has not led to any slippery slope, and made television much better overall. I have direct comparisons available from living in several countries during my lifetime--do you?

The slippery slope has been going down the opposite hill, actually, in America: It's amazing how much less rights a consumer has in the US compared to, again for example, in Germany.

The "well just don't do/consume/choose X then" argument is extremely shortsighted. If X is provided by commercial entities, then those commercial entities will, together, converge towards maximum profits with no regards for the consumer at all. Regulation is necessary as a counteractive force. A prime piece of evidence actually comes from your own post: "Don't watch the channel". Ok, I switched the channel on my cable box, now what? Ah, still the same.

[feocco]

Slippery slope is not in regards to ad length. It's about the desire to regulate "sustained gameplay" mechanics in games.

You act as if the only media you can consume is via cable. There's virtually unlimited options in our age for media. The majority of it is free, not counting cost of internet.

X(media) is not provided by solely corporate entities. If someone wants to have a half hour ad(or infomercial) in their content, people will watch something else. It's shortsighted if there's a monopoly on X so your choices are limited. But that's the furthest thing from the truth in today's age in regards to media.

[zaarn]

>Regulating length of ads is silly too.

It's not really. The limited amount of adspace, about 10 minutes full screen and 4 or 5 minutes side, some banners, have greatly increased the value of ads on TV.

More expensive ads also means the ads are of much higher quality and less annoying than the US ads.

Buying the content is of course always an option but this is largely form an era before buying content was even an option or required extremely expensive VHS players.

[feocco]

If we lived in a world where cable was the primary form of media consumption, I wouldn't think ad regulation was silly.

Like you said, we live in a new era. I think the idea of that regulation feels antiquated with the near unlimited choices now.

Regardless, this is off topic. My extreme tl;dr - keep lawmakers grubby paws off my video games!