Why is there gambling in a game rated 13+?

[Khisanth.2948]

8 minutes ago, Silent.6137 said:

You ban gamblings. All you're doing is drive them underground. You will not stop it. People will always find a way.

That is actually why Belgium legalized gambling.

https://gamingcommission.be/en/node/409

Quote

In Belgium there is a ban on games of chance, except where explicitly permitted. Because an absolute ban in the past has led to a proliferation of illegal games of chance, the government opted for a channeling policy with permits.

Same thing happened with Prohibition in the US. Same or similar with the whole "War on Drugs".

5 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

But video game companies do actively prey on their customers to extract as much money from them as they possibly can (far beyond what is needed to sustain their business); they shamelessly exploit vulnerabilities in human psychology and intentionally design addictive patterns to get people to buy things they don't really want or need and play long past the point they want to keep playing.

That is not just video game companies. Every company with a marketing department is doing that and of course advertising companies exist for that sole purpose. It doesn't make it okay but it DOES make it wrong to try to single them out as if they are the only offender.

 

[Labjax.2465]

2 minutes ago, Khisanth.2948 said:

That is actually why Belgium legalized gambling.

https://gamingcommission.be/en/node/409

Same thing happened with Prohibition in the US. Same or similar with the whole "War on Drugs".

That is not just video game companies. Every company with a marketing department is doing that and of course advertising companies exist for that sole purpose. It doesn't make it okay but it DOES make it wrong to try to single them out as if they are the only offender.

 

Why are you singling them out to defend them? 🤨 I never stated or implied they are the only offender in business. The subject here is video games, so of course I'm taking about the specifics of what they do. You expect me to generalize all of it rather than dare talk about specifics relevant to the subject matter? Ridiculous.

[The Greyhawk.9107]

1 hour ago, Labjax.2465 said:

This is the same reasoning people use when a tragic accident happens to a kid. "The parent should have been watching them." Obviously, the parent wishes they had been and blames themself. But you can't prevent all such things from happening. If you try to obsessively, what you get is being a helicopter parent and I'm sure people who use this kind of reasoning would say those parents are overbearing, so there is no winning when the goal is just to blame everything on the parent and remove the broader environment from the picture entirely, which is just absurd. Parents are not superhuman and with the nuclear family / overworked to make money model, they are often exhausted and stretched thin just trying to manage it all, let alone live up to their own ideals, much less anyone else's.

Tragic accidents and kids stealing large amounts of money is not at all comparable, one is an act of will.  I don't think I can comprehend the trouble I would have been in as a kid if I had use a credit card the way people say children do today with lootboxes.  Taking away the computer and making me pay back the money would have been the least of what I had to deal with.  Why is it really so hard to imagine raising a child to not steal from you, or baring that, finding way to keep your credit and bank cards away from their grubby little hands?

[Silent.6137]

10 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

Show me the part where I said only video game companies prey on their customers??? I compared it against families preying on video game companies (which doesn't happen). What a ridiculous thing to say. It's interesting how you insist on families taking responsibility for their actions, but you don't mention the companies taking responsibility for their part in it (which is actively predatory).

Did you mention other companies doing the same as well? No. You are using selective reasoning by using a generic argument that can apply to anything at all.

Any public companies should be socially consious but ultimate responsibilities should be the individual's. A game company is not an entity unto and by itself. It comprises of these "families" that supposedly aren't actively preying on game companies. Or do you believe all those who works for such companies have no social conscience?

[Labjax.2465]

Just now, The Greyhawk.9107 said:

Tragic accidents and kids stealing large amounts of money is not at all comparable, one is an act of will.  I don't think I can comprehend the trouble I would have been in as a kid if I had use a credit card the way people say children do today with lootboxes.  Taking away the computer and making me pay back the money would have been the least of what I had to deal with.  Why is it really so hard to imagine raising a child to not steal from you, or baring that, finding way to keep your credit and bank cards away from their grubby little hands?

So first it's blaming the parents for being irresponsible, now it's blaming a kid (whose impulse control is not even fully developed, mind you, and is encountering systems that are specifically meant to exploit poor impulse control) is apparently the kid being a thief and the parent raising a thief? It is unbelievable the lengths people will go to, to blame an individual parent or a kid, but not apply the same scrutiny to the actions of a company making millions.

[Sobx.1758]

3 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

So first it's blaming the parents for being irresponsible, now it's blaming a kid (whose impulse control is not even fully developed, mind you, and is encountering systems that are specifically meant to exploit poor impulse control) is apparently the kid being a thief and the parent raising a thief? It is unbelievable the lengths people will go to, to blame an individual parent or a kid, but not apply the same scrutiny to the actions of a company making millions.

I'd rather say it is unbelievable the lengths some parents will go in an attempt to find a scapegoat when they leave their credit card accessible to their child.

Is gambling good? No, it's not. Is a child throwing their parents' credit card left and right anybody's fault other than those parents? No, it's not.

Edited October 25, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Beast Sos.1457]

3 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

I'd rather say it is unbelievable the lengths some parents will go in an attempt to find a scapegoat when they leave their credit card accessible to their child.

Is gambling good? No, it's not. Is a child throwing their parents' credit card left and right anybody's fault other than those parents? No, it's not.

Who's fault is it for adding gambling in a game rated 13+? 

I agree though. If your kid has access to your credit card like that, its on the parents for sure. Even more so, if your kid is willing to steal your card like that, your parenting is lacking heavily. 

[Khisanth.2948]

44 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

Why are you singling them out to defend them? 🤨 I never stated or implied they are the only offender in business. The subject here is video games, so of course I'm taking about the specifics of what they do. You expect me to generalize all of it rather than dare talk about specifics relevant to the subject matter? Ridiculous.

Did you have a point beyond just making a generically true statement?

What do you think should be done? If you are not singling out any group this answer needs to apply to every business. For example one of the first things that would have to be banned are discounts.

26 minutes ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

Who's fault is it for adding gambling in a game rated 13+? 

I agree though. If your kid has access to your credit card like that, its on the parents for sure. Even more so, if your kid is willing to steal your card like that, your parenting is lacking heavily. 

The ratings board. Probably ESRB in this case since PEGI has it as 12+.

It is pretty clear who is at fault if the regulators are not regulating.

It isn't necessarily theft. It could just be "using phone as babysitter". Although in that case the same issues have popped up with things like Alexa and at least one person almost had it happen with their pet parrot.

[The Greyhawk.9107]

28 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

So first it's blaming the parents for being irresponsible, now it's blaming a kid (whose impulse control is not even fully developed, mind you, and is encountering systems that are specifically meant to exploit poor impulse control) is apparently the kid being a thief and the parent raising a thief? It is unbelievable the lengths people will go to, to blame an individual parent or a kid, but not apply the same scrutiny to the actions of a company making millions.

Your response astounds me. Children have always been children, you speak as if the poor impulse control isn't one of the primary and most well known reasons for parents in the first place.  The onus is always on the parents (or guardian) before all else, they are the first and best at teaching, defending, supporting, and molding a child into a healthy well adjusted adult.  A parent (or guardian) that's performing their roll even moderately competently is going to be the better barrier between a child and whatever predator practices a company may have. And yes, a child that'd willing to steal large amounts of money from their parent, using a credit card no less what with interest rates and such, is by definition a thief. Such a child is in danger of more major criminality beyond just taking money from their parents if that behavior isn't corrected, which is by and large the most significant reason why I focus more on the parents over the companies. Its much more important to me that that the onus remains on the parents first so that children AREN'T raised in such a way that they give into the temptations that can lead them down paths towards criminality. 

[itspomf.9523]

Did we honestly need a forum post that's a thinly veiled "think of the children" in a game where the violence which occurs in it is, perhaps, the greater concern than whether or not someone's child might decide to buy a lot of trading cards in the future, which I needn't remind you is the reason for its Teen / PEGI 13 rating?

[AliamRationem.5172]

2 hours ago, Labjax.2465 said:

Last I checked, families aren't trying to actively prey on video game companies. But video game companies do actively prey on their customers to extract as much money from them as they possibly can (far beyond what is needed to sustain their business); they shamelessly exploit vulnerabilities in human psychology and intentionally design addictive patterns to get people to buy things they don't really want or need and play long past the point they want to keep playing. And you're siding with the companies because some vague accusation of people "rushing into" raising a family and "having failings" (something everyone has). BTW, if you are standing on a ledge and someone pushes you off it, that isn't a "failing." They pushed you. People need to stop pretending like individuals are bulwarks of executive function who are immune to outside influence and are people who are trying to shirk responsibility if they ever dare acknowledge responsibility beyond their own. It's putting an idealistic view of the human psyche over reality and makes no sense.

I'm sure they know how monetization works, but the other side of it is the individual.  To some, lootboxes are predatory.  They prey on the weaknesses of a small subset of people who lack self control.  But for plenty of other people do just fine with lootboxes.

I used overwatch as an example.   They used to just give you currency and lootboxes for playing.  This meant you got some random stuff as well as being able to purchase what you wanted if you were patient.  Or you could spend cash.

Their new monetization methods got rid of "predatory" lootboxes and replaced the whole system with a model that gives players no choice.  The gamblers are protected but now everyone has to pay if they want anything outside of what is offered for free.

Better? Not for a lot of players.

[Beast Sos.1457]

4 hours ago, Khisanth.2948 said:

The ratings board. Probably ESRB in this case since PEGI has it as 12+.

It is pretty clear who is at fault if the regulators are not regulating.

It isn't necessarily theft. It could just be "using phone as babysitter". Although in that case the same issues have popped up with things like Alexa and at least one person almost had it happen with their pet parrot.

Do you base your morality off of law? A company doing something amoral just because the law allows it doesn't clear them of any fault. 

[DarcShriek.5829]

In the US, BLCs are not considered gambling.  Nothing awarded by the BLS has a monetary value.

[Silent.6137]

1 hour ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

Do you base your morality off of law? A company doing something amoral just because the law allows it doesn't clear them of any fault. 

Morality is extremely subjective. Different people, countries, cultures, religions, etc., have their own perceptions of what is moral or amoral. You do not get to dictate what is amoral for other societies just as they do not get to dictate yours. Would you accept the moral values of a society based upon extreme orthodox religious principles? Orthodox Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or what have you?

I do not find gambling, or in this case lootboxes, amoral. And my country do not ban them, nor my society condemn them. Your country and your society do not get to dictate what is or is not amoral for the rest of the world. Or for me.

I based my morals on my personal and my society's values, in case you're asking. And I do not find them lacking one bit.

[Beast Sos.1457]

2 hours ago, Silent.6137 said:

Morality is extremely subjective. Different people, countries, cultures, religions, etc., have their own perceptions of what is moral or amoral. You do not get to dictate what is amoral for other societies just as they do not get to dictate yours. Would you accept the moral values of a society based upon extreme orthodox religious principles? Orthodox Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or what have you?

I do not find gambling, or in this case lootboxes, amoral. And my country do not ban them, nor my society condemn them. Your country and your society do not get to dictate what is or is not amoral for the rest of the world. Or for me.

I based my morals on my personal and my society's values, in case you're asking. And I do not find them lacking one bit.

You don't find it to be amoral to have gambling in something targeted towards children? That was the point of this whole topic. Not gambling itself. I even clarified that in my edit..

Of course you don't find your morals lacking. If you found it lacking then it wouldn't be your moral anymore. 

[Silent.6137]

1 hour ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

You don't find it to be amoral to have gambling in something targeted towards children? That was the point of this whole topic. Not gambling itself. I even clarified that in my edit..

MMOs are never targetted towards children in the first place, although teens are permitted to play. Children generally do not have disposable incomes to spend.

If I do not find gambling to be amoral, why would it be amoral if it exist within a game? Children are exposed to all forms of gambling everywhere in the real world. Banning lootboxes because someone decided it's gambling and gambling is amoral, will hardly stop any children to be more morally well-adjusted. Trying to shelter children from the evil of lootboxes? Really?

Edited October 26, 2022 by Silent.6137

[AliamRationem.5172]

2 hours ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

You don't find it to be amoral to have gambling in something targeted towards children? That was the point of this whole topic. Not gambling itself. I even clarified that in my edit..

Of course you don't find your morals lacking. If you found it lacking then it wouldn't be your moral anymore. 

Children don't have an income, GW2 is not targeted at children, and calling lootboxes "gambling" is like calling a water balloon a hand grenade.

 

[Super Hayes.6890]

4 hours ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

You don't find it to be amoral to have gambling in something targeted towards children? That was the point of this whole topic. Not gambling itself. I even clarified that in my edit..

Of course you don't find your morals lacking. If you found it lacking then it wouldn't be your moral anymore. 

Both my children are under 13 and both play this game. If they want to open a Black Lion Chest they both know that they are getting whatever it drops. I have taught them to be happy with the outcome or don't open them at all. You know what! They get excited even when they get what I consider bad drops. Then we say "awesome, what do you want to do now?" They have yet to say they want to open another and they have been playing over two years. It's called being present and walking your children through choices. No parent is exempt from teaching thier children that every choice results in a consequence, good or bad. No gaming company rating excuses me from coming along side them and seeing what they have gotten into, even if the rating is "E for everybody." Stop trying to pin a culture issue on a gaming company.

[SlayerXX.7138]

Having a direct line from your Home to spend Money on Loot boxes on Kid friendly games seems wrong to me. Especially if it goes through digital paying Method -> Gems -> Black Lion Keys -> Random loot including Exclusive stuff making validating what and how you spent it harder then it should be.

To expand that to Lootboxes and online gambling in general: I see a lot of People stating stuff like personally responsibility. Which makes sense in Personal interaction like putting 50 bucks into a Novoline or similar box. Online you have on one Side Professionals, who had years to learn how to trick People into gambling as much as Possible. Backed up by data and Resources. On the other side you have who ever got caught in a pretty wide net, thanks to the accessibility of online gambling in it various forms. Its an uneven match. Its not the vice vs the individual. Its the vice backed up by Professionals against who ever is in a vulnerable at the moment. 

 

[DarcShriek.5829]

6 hours ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

You don't find it to be amoral to have gambling in something targeted towards children? That was the point of this whole topic. Not gambling itself. I even clarified that in my edit..

Of course you don't find your morals lacking. If you found it lacking then it wouldn't be your moral anymore. 

Please understand that the definition of gambling varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Please stop demanding that the world court has decided it is gambling, because there is no such authority.  In the US BLC's are not considered gambling because they don not reward anything of monetary value.  You cannot legally sell anything from the BLC for cash.  In the US, gambling must involve cash.  BLCs don't.

You may think this is a loophole, but the law and definition of gambling in the US doesn't care what you think, and it doesn't care about your feelings.

[SnackParty.3178]

Zelda, Link to the Past, had gambling...that was the 90's.

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

18 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

I'd rather say it is unbelievable the lengths some parents will go in an attempt to find a scapegoat when they leave their credit card accessible to their child.

Is gambling good? No, it's not. Is a child throwing their parents' credit card left and right anybody's fault other than those parents? No, it's not.

I never understood how kids can get their parent's credit card. 

[Lonecap.4105]

Please leave ecto gambling alone, without it Ill have no possible way of making easy lucky monies. 

[Farohna.6247]

1 hour ago, Allen.9310 said:

Zelda, Link to the Past, had gambling...that was the 90's.

Many of the 80s and 90s games had gambling....variations of roulette, cards, slot machines, and shell games.  Oddly the people I know who played those understand games of chance and that the odds aren't in their favor and have no gambling addiction.  I really don't think ecto gambling is driving children to Vegas and poverty.  Maybe they learn not to waste their hard earned materials...good life lesson.  Wait till they discover the mystic toilet.  

[Sobx.1758]

9 hours ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

You don't find it to be amoral to have gambling in something targeted towards children? That was the point of this whole topic. Not gambling itself. I even clarified that in my edit..

Of course you don't find your morals lacking. If you found it lacking then it wouldn't be your moral anymore. 

Not exactly a black-and-white topic imo. I probably have less of a problem with gambling itself being a thing, but more about not having the chances disclosed.