[can16358p]

Predatory?

Casinos shouldn't be regulated too. If nobody is forcing anyone to attend into something (like going to a casino or playing a pay-to-win game) nobody should have the right to change or regulate the inner dynamics.

As long as the game doesn't clearly lie (e.g. telling a lootbox does something that it doesn't) everybody knows what a lootbox is. Playing the game is a voluntary action taken by an individual, just like going to a casino. They are responsible for their own actions, and blocking a certain demographics' (e.g. people in Netherlands) to access to a game/mechanics (e.g. Diablo Immortal + lootboxes) is fundamentally against people's freedom of choosing to play a game or not.

It's their money, they can spend $1m if they want to, on lootboxes.

Would I? Definitely not. But blocking someone who does want to from doing it, whereas it doesn't have negative effects to society (e.g. Doesn't affect anyone but the person themselves) is ridiculous.

[mfashby]

> Playing the game is a voluntary action taken by an individual, just like going to a casino.

The same argument can be made for other regulated activities like drinking alcohol or smoking (whether you agree or not, that's how it is in a lot of places today). Those are voluntary activities too.

> whereas it doesn't have negative effects to society

Addiction _does_ have negative effects on society, which is why these rules get introduced. It looks like this ban [1] is enforcement of gambling laws, because the loot is transferrable it's deemed to have value. I'm curious in this case to know how much of an impact banning these particular games actually has though.

[1] https://www.thegamer.com/netherlands-loot-box-ban/

edit; haha, lots of people spotted this same argument.

[vkou]

> Casinos shouldn't be regulated too. If nobody is forcing anyone to attend into something (like going to a casino or playing a pay-to-win game) nobody should have the right to change or regulate the inner dynamics.

In theory, humans are rational, and in theory, spherical cows are an excellent basis for economics.

Human brains have bugs, and these industries exploit them. It's predatory, and utterly reprehensible.

[can16358p]

Human brains have bugs, and anyone going into a casino or a pay-to-win games know what they are going into. (If they don't that's their problem for not doing their own research and using common sense before putting their money)

Human brains also have a bug around sugar consumption. I've yet to see selling people sugar or sugar-containing foods/beverages being regulated.

Human brains also have a bug making many of them social media addicts.

Human brains have so many bugs. At the end of the day regulating these businesses will hurt more people who voluntarily want to be involved than saving potential addicts.

The real solution is never preventing people from doing things (of course as long as they affect only the person and not the others' rights), instead, it's educating.

If those governments placed their efforts into educating the people about addiction mechanics of those games/casinos etc. instead of blocking/regulating altogether, it would be much more beneficial than blocking people from their own decisions.

[less_less]

> Human brains have bugs, and anyone going into a casino or a pay-to-win games know what they are going into. (If they don't that's their problem for not doing their own research and using common sense before putting their money)

"It's OK if people's lives are intentionally ruined purely for corporate profits, so long as it's at least partly those people's fault. They shouldn't let themselves be tricked."

> Human brains also have a bug around sugar consumption. I've yet to see selling people sugar or sugar-containing foods/beverages being regulated.

By the way, San Francisco taxes sugary drinks and requires them to have a warning label.

> The real solution is never preventing people from doing things (of course as long as they affect only the person and not the others' rights), instead, it's educating.

These approaches are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps it's best to find a balance between them?

[eesmith]

> San Francisco taxes sugary drinks

And see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax .

Also, NYC tried to ban some sales of sugary beverages over 16 oz, thrown out by the courts.

[can16358p]

Ruining their lives is a bit exaggeration for playing pay to win games though.

I do not support them, I only hate the idea of banning anything more.

I believe education is the key but never see that done enough. (Not only about these topics but pretty much anything).

Banning should really, really be the last option.

[oneeyedpigeon]

> I've yet to see selling people sugar or sugar-containing foods/beverages being regulated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax#United_King...

This might not quite meet your threshold, but it's probably close. More regulation around sugar is definitely around the corner.

[can16358p]

Okay. That's a step in the right direction. Taxing might be the middle ground instead of banning something outright.

[npteljes]

You emphasize personal responsibility, but most of the world doesn't have that on the top of their societal values[0]. And one person's problematic gambling, as any other addiction, definitely impacts others, similar to how substance abuse or any other addiction really[1].

[0] See it as "individualism" here on the first map: https://geerthofstede.com/culture-geert-hofstede-gert-jan-ho...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_gambling#Signs_and_sym...

[libraryatnight]

The last person who made this kind of argument to me was a gambling addict who had gotten into day trading.

[can16358p]

Well sad for them. I'm not involved in either gambling, daytrading, nor pay-to-win games, or any other addictive practice.

Just because they shared a similar view on this doesn't mean that I'm also an addict too.

While you didn't explicitly tell such a thing, directly replying with this example implies that.

[michaelmrose]

This is like saying people ought to be free to sell meth on the corner because you are smart enough to avoid addiction. Societies have good reason to ban things that are a net negative to society.

[can16358p]

Yup. Exactly. Drugs should be legalized too.

I don't do them but have respect to one's own opinion about their own body even if that means poisoning/killing themselves.

[michaelmrose]

There is an argument for decriminalizing drug possession. The same argument in no way holds for drug dealing. The price would come down and availability would skyrocket as would the problems that stem from use.

[gspr]

> Casinos shouldn't be regulated too. If nobody is forcing anyone to attend into something (like going to a casino or playing a pay-to-win game) nobody should have the right to change or regulate the inner dynamics.

This is, of course, a position that is yours to hold. But I do hope that you recognize that it's quite a small, fringe one. It's a bit strange to use a fringe opinion about casino regulation as the stepping stone for an implication that loot boxes shouldn't be regulated.

[can16358p]

I was replying to the argument by parent comment which gave that specific example of gambling vs. loot boxes.