[technothrasher]

Hmm, so why do your perfectly reasonable thoughts on how to reduce alcohol abuse in light of not being able to simply ban it not apply to loot boxes as well? How is it different such that "completely banning", as you suggested, is a good idea there where it isn't for alcohol, drugs, smoking, and gambling (of which loot boxes are clearly a subcategory)?

[hofrogs]

Lootboxes are not entrenched in society yet. They are a new phenomenon that could hopefully be stopped in its tracks (but probably won't since it will impact profits)

[downsplat]

Alcohol has been deeply embedded in human culture for thousands+ years, that's why prohibition is a bad idea. Loot boxes are a new invention, if they're deemed too harmful we can just do without them.

[alex43578]

We absolutely could do without alcohol too and it's certainly far more harmful than lootboxes by any metric.

[raw_anon_1111]

Yes because Prohibition worked so well before?

[alex43578]

People do plenty of illegal things, but we still outlaw them to reduce the rate of people doing those things.

On the contrary, if we accept that people are mature enough to choose to drink, they certainly should be mature enough to spend $20 opening loot boxes. Fewer cases of cirrhosis, drunk driving accidents, and bar fights from loot boxes.

[raw_anon_1111]

No we outlaw them to disproportionately put minorities in jail…

I would rather not give the government more power.

[lo_zamoyski]

Too much thumos, not enough nous in this conversation...

1. Alcohol may be consumed in moderation for enjoyment with no frustrating effect on our rational faculties. Even the bad effects on health are often overblown. They tend to be chronic and rooted in habitual consumption. Save for people with a predisposition for alcoholism, people generally do not experience compulsive desires for alcohol.

2. Gambling isn't comparable to alcohol. It is intrinsically irrational and inherently exploitative. It is also an intrinsically social and economic phenomenon. It requires the intentional exploitation of one party by another to work.

3. Loot boxes are intentionally designed to manipulate people psychologically for profit. It habituates bad habits by virtue of its very design.

4. While alcohol can be used that way, it is not designed for that purpose nor is its historical pedigree rooted in such malice. I would also claim that its addictive potential is lower all things considered.

So they aren't comparable. It's not enough to say "both A and B can have harmful effects, therefore both A and B are 'the same' for all intents and purposes".

[johannes1234321]

Creating a black market for loot boxes is a lot harder than for liquor or setting up a poker game in the backroom.

[chongli]

I would argue the opposite. Black market liquor (bootlegging) requires a full black market distillery industry and smuggling/distribution network. It's every bit as difficult as operating in the narcotics world, with violence and cartels everywhere.

Black market loot boxes, on the other hand, seem to me to be similar to software and media piracy and illegal streaming: easy to operate, extremely difficult to prevent.

[hofrogs]

Isn't the perceived value from "rare items" from those loot boxes based on the popularity of the game/IP that the loot box system is attached to?

[duskdozer]

A difference is that Prohibition was also criminalizing individual production and personal use, while banning lootboxes and the like is just limiting corporate use as a sales and marketing tactic. Similar to how cigarette ads were banned on TV in the US in 1970, but you can still buy and smoke cigarettes today.