Or people could not buy microtransactions or support games and studios that use them. Seems like something the free market could regulate without legislation.
> Or people could not buy microtransactions or support games and studios that use them.
That's about as helpful as telling people to solve their gambling issue by not gambling. The problem is that many of these microtransaction-based games use the same mechanics as gambling to make them addictive _and_ they're targeting minors with it.
If you are talking about real money loot crates/boxes/packages (as opposed to in game earned virtual currency) you are quite literally talking about gambling. In the case of some games, marketed directly to minors. I am about as free market solution as it gets, but I definitely draw the line at exploiting children (and defrauding their parents simultaneously)
The people who have most issues with gambling addiction play competitive online games. Microtransactions or not, it is competitive online that has people spend all time in game world and their partners wish a new partner.
People want to play the game, why is it you (or the government's) job to tell them not to? It's their money, if playing a gacha game is fun for them, I really don't see the problem.
With gambling people may be driven to gamble to get out of debt. With gacha games, you can't.
People want to do heroin, why is it you (or the government's) job to tell them not to? ...
Microtransaction games are based around exploiting an inherent flaw in human reasoning; predatory behaviors that exploit our weaknesses as humans should be regulated against.
edit: to back this up: The wordpress blog linked below references 19 clinical studies and explains in detail much better than I care to write up.
>People want to do heroin, why is it you (or the government's) job to tell them not to? ...
When people start killing each other, or letting their lives fall apart around them, just so they can spend more money on another cute girl in Fate GO, then I'll let you make that analogy.
> When people start killing each other, or letting their lives fall apart around them, just so they can spend more money on another cute girl in Fate GO, then I'll let you make that analogy.
Gambling, video game, and internet addictions are real and do ruin lives.
While I don't want to dive into hyperbole territory and don't blame video games for this instance of violence, just this week someone punched and killed their 1 year old child because they lost at a video game[1].
Brains are weird and are easily highjacked by dopamine hits, whether they're obtained from drugs or external stimuli.
Anecdotal but I've personally known people that have sunk thousands into microtransactions for a single game. Claiming that they arent harmful or predatory in any way whatsoever just seems to be an intentionally obtuse claim to me.
I also know people who have sunk thousands on gacha games.
But that does not make it harmful or predatory. People are allowed to spend money on whatever they want, just because you don't agree with their choices doesn't mean you should make it illegal.
The line between gambling and microtransactions is often very hazy. They tend to exploit the same vulnerability in our brains that leads to gambling addiction. And the target is often children.
> With gambling people may be driven to gamble to get out of debt.
Is there any proof children are the ones being affected? The biggest source of money in these games has always been whales. And honestly if a kid used there parents credit card to hit $500+, that sounds like a parenting problem (you probably should have put a stop to it earlier). I don't see a problem with a parent giving there kid $60 to spend on Fortnite skins.
>This is not really the problem with gambling.
Yea it is? People lose money gambling, people bet more money to try and make back what they lost. But you'll always eventually lose money gambling in the long run. It's the most common fallacy that gets brought up in gambling.
Legislation already exists either restricting gambling or ensuring that it works in specific, semi-transparent ways. I'm not aware of similar restrictions on microtransactions (though I'm unfamiliar with microtransactions in general).
I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think it would be too much of a stretch to apply US gambling laws to pay-to-win games and loot boxes. It wouldn’t surprise me if these games have their own Black Friday [1] soon. Disclaimer: I’m not advocating for this and actually would like to see more relaxed online gaming regulations!
They could but they won't. The fact that the market rewards behavior from consumers and vendors that's counter to the consumers' best interest is why legislation is needed.
But isn't the whole point is that companies are exploiting a bug in our biology to profit? In that case, the fix has to happen more upstream...
If you want to argue that this could be fixed in libertarian-topia without government intervention, you might argue that I dunno, there could be a class action suit showing that the gaming companies knew that such and such mechanics were resulting in many people becoming addicted/going bankrupt and did it anyway, and maybe that's right.
And if you wanna argue that who is so-and-so to argue that X really didn't want to spend all her money on virtual farm upgrades then that's an argument too I suppose.
But if the problem is people are buying something they don't want to because of a dopamine hook, then arguing that the solution is to stop buying it isn't satisfactory.
A lot of times microtransactions simply are time saving. Even in every Gacha game I know of you can technically pay for free, if you're willing to dedicate the time.
But in Clash of Clans, for example, you can be very 'good' (idk what word to use with these kinds of games) without having spent money. You will of course, have spent your time instead.
>A lot of times microtransactions simply are time saving. Even in every Gacha game I know of you can technically pay for free, if you're willing to dedicate the time.
Theoretically maybe, realistically many of those types of games would require about as much time devoted as a full time job to be winnable, if not playable, without microtransactions.
How on Earth is it naive to point out these games can be played for free? Countless people do it for Puzzle and Dragons and Fate GO, and these two games are some of the highest grossing mobile games of all times. Just go into their respective subreddits and search F2P.
You can play F2P. If you want to save 3 hours of grinding buy spending $5, why do you want to stop them? It's their money, if people enjoy these games, why stop them? You don't need to control every aspect of peoples lives.
These games are engineered to override your ability to make rational decisions. If you are unwilling to see that and are unaware of why they are called "skinner boxes" or skinnerware, and don't see a problem with games that make you suffer (wait) unless you pay repeatedly, and even excuse the developers for exploiting children's
and whale's psychologicall unpatchable vuls then these schemes have already won over you.
Just check how the cigarette industry moved public attention from addictive substances they deliberately put into cigarettes to "personal responsibility of smokers".
That's about as helpful as telling people to solve their gambling issue by not gambling. The problem is that many of these microtransaction-based games use the same mechanics as gambling to make them addictive _and_ they're targeting minors with it.