Maintenance for the week of December 16:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – December 16
• NA megaservers for patch maintenance – December 17, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for patch maintenance – December 17, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – December 16
• NA megaservers for patch maintenance – December 17, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for patch maintenance – December 17, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
State of Hawaii introduces anti-gambling restrictions on video games
-
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I find it interesting that bill's sponsor included gamers as well. You sell your unwanted copy of Game X to the kid down the street, and you will have broken this law.
0 -
Skwor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭NordSwordnBoard wrote: »
Please read the legislation - as I pointed out to you in my first response:
(2) A virtual item which can be redeemed to directly or indirectly receive a randomized reward or rewards.
Crowns are a virtual item which can be redeemed to directly or indirectly receive a randomized reward like Crates or rewards like any cosmetic crown store item for sale.
I read you fine the first time. What you point out is only a defining catagory and I have always maintained it is possible under a broad interpretation to fall under the over 21 sales requirement. This still does not prevent selling crates in ESO or for that matter any game.0 -
LegacyDM✭✭✭✭✭
✭The point of this post is to bring it to Zos attention
They know, and Gina has nothing to do with it.
This is more a matter for their monetization department. They are fully aware of what they are doing, and will only change their model if legally forced to. Also, no one from ZOS is going to comment, aside from moderation.
Ok relax guy. I tagged Gina cause they all work in the same office. She can relay the msg to the moneyization dept. I don’t even know who the pic is for that dept. Should I have tagged Matt firor instead?Legacy of Kain
Vicious Carnage
¥ampire Lord of the South1 -
zaria✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
WOW classic is out soonMyKillv2.0 wrote: »I think OP is right, this is a trend that will continue. Two anecdotal data points, do with them what you will:
1) I know a couple who split up because of a gambling problem. All the classic issues: Promising no more, and then spending money they didn't have. Emotional ups and downs from losses. Money problems and money fights. Real children impacted. Yep, not a casino or online poker. Loot boxes.
2) Last Christmas at a party, our local state assemblyman told me that the issue parents bring up to him more than any other right now is...you guessed it...loot boxes. Wow. More than: high cost of health insurance. More than: education. More than: sugary drinks. More than: vaping. More than: anything else. Wow.
Wow. If you bought that story..... I don't what to say. Wow.
Hopefully without loot boxes 
Grinding just make you go in circles.
Asking ZoS for nerfs is as stupid as asking for close air support from the death star.1 -
kargen27✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Holycannoli wrote: »
When the law gets challenged in court card games not being included will be one of the points for dismissal of the law. Along with baseball trading cards and other similar products. They will ask why video games were targeted exclusively.
I don't see raising the age from 18 to 21 having any impact on game sales (not just this game) at all other than sales in brick and mortar establishments. If you have a credit card you can get the game through digital download. The law will be near impossible to enforce and that isn't considering that parents and older friends can purchase the game for those under 21.and then the parrot said, "must be the water mines green too."2 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Gumball machines will be safe, asThe point of this post is to bring it to Zos attention
They know, and Gina has nothing to do with it.
This is more a matter for their monetization department. They are fully aware of what they are doing, and will only change their model if legally forced to. Also, no one from ZOS is going to comment, aside from moderation.
Ok relax guy. I tagged Gina cause they all work in the same office. She can relay the msg to the moneyization dept. I don’t even know who the pic is for that dept. Should I have tagged Matt firor instead?
Ummm... there are more than 1500 employees at Zenimax Media according to the last time they released data. I doubt the legal team is a quick trip down the hall.
If you're really interested in putting this in the correct hands, you might try visiting the corporate web site to find the government affairs or legal affairs contact.
Gina is not a message delivery service.
Edited by therift on February 22, 2019 9:28PM0 -
clocksstoppe✭✭✭✭✭
✭Holycannoli wrote: »
When the law gets challenged in court card games not being included will be one of the points for dismissal of the law. Along with baseball trading cards and other similar products. They will ask why video games were targeted exclusively.
You can't challenge it for that reason. At most you can argue that physical lootboxes should also be banned, but you wouldn't have any actual argument against banning video games gambling for children.2 -
Castagere✭✭✭✭✭Yeah, this is coming no matter what we say. When one state passes it others will follow. It always works out that way. Parents will start screaming about this to get the ball rolling. It just got over the top bad in mobile games so it will hit PC and Console gaming. It will be interesting to see how the big game companies react including ZOS.1 -
Bouldercleave✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Seeing as most video games are sold digitally, how would they even enforce this?
So they cannot sell hard copy games retail, how could they POSSIBLY stop online sales to a minor?
All a Company like ZoS would have to do is slap a warning label on it (like anyone reads that stuff), not sell it in retail brick and mortar stores (something that is a dying thing anyway), and put a click through age verification on their online sales.
This legislation wouldn't stop one single sale in my opinion.0 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Bouldercleave wrote: »Seeing as most video games are sold digitally, how would they even enforce this?
So they cannot sell hard copy games retail, how could they POSSIBLY stop online sales to a minor?
All a Company like ZoS would have to do is slap a warning label on it (like anyone reads that stuff), not sell it in retail brick and mortar stores (something that is a dying thing anyway), and put a click through age verification on their online sales.
This legislation wouldn't stop one single sale in my opinion.
It doesn't have to stop sales. It provides a means of enjoining and penalizing violations.
1 -
Bouldercleave✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Bouldercleave wrote: »Seeing as most video games are sold digitally, how would they even enforce this?
So they cannot sell hard copy games retail, how could they POSSIBLY stop online sales to a minor?
All a Company like ZoS would have to do is slap a warning label on it (like anyone reads that stuff), not sell it in retail brick and mortar stores (something that is a dying thing anyway), and put a click through age verification on their online sales.
This legislation wouldn't stop one single sale in my opinion.
It doesn't have to stop sales. It provides a means of enjoining and penalizing violations.
Again, how would they even be able to enforce that?
With a warning label and age verification the company would be virtually bulletproof against this legislation. If a minor lies about the age verification, the company would no longer be liable.
I'm not trying to be contrary, I simply don't understand how this would even cause a ripple in the pond.1 -
Skwor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭clocksstoppe wrote: »Holycannoli wrote: »
When the law gets challenged in court card games not being included will be one of the points for dismissal of the law. Along with baseball trading cards and other similar products. They will ask why video games were targeted exclusively.
You can't challenge it for that reason. At most you can argue that physical lootboxes should also be banned, but you wouldn't have any actual argument against banning video games gambling for children.
Yes you can under the equal protections clause of the constitution. However these forums are nowhere near ready for those types of legal debate.1 -
Reistr_the_Unbroken✭✭✭✭✭
✭I saw a few comments about how the age should be raised to 21 and I thought of a few points nobody brought up.
What about those who already bought a physical copy of the game before the change? Are they breaking the law then? Are their physical copies going to be taken away when they rightfully bought it with their own money? What about people who are 20 and want to buy the game? Would it still be illegal then?
0 -
Skwor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Bouldercleave wrote: »Seeing as most video games are sold digitally, how would they even enforce this?
So they cannot sell hard copy games retail, how could they POSSIBLY stop online sales to a minor?
All a Company like ZoS would have to do is slap a warning label on it (like anyone reads that stuff), not sell it in retail brick and mortar stores (something that is a dying thing anyway), and put a click through age verification on their online sales.
This legislation wouldn't stop one single sale in my opinion.
It doesn't have to stop sales. It provides a means of enjoining and penalizing violations.
Who are you going to penalize? The game is already an M rating. Only adults are buying it0 -
Jhalin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Holycannoli wrote: »
When the law gets challenged in court card games not being included will be one of the points for dismissal of the law. Along with baseball trading cards and other similar products. They will ask why video games were targeted exclusively.
I don't see raising the age from 18 to 21 having any impact on game sales (not just this game) at all other than sales in brick and mortar establishments. If you have a credit card you can get the game through digital download. The law will be near impossible to enforce and that isn't considering that parents and older friends can purchase the game for those under 21.
Video games will become a specific target due to the sheer ease of access for minors. It’s simply too easy for a child to use their parent’s cards and spend thousands before their parents receive any notice. With physical goods, a physical presence is required to purchase the items, and it’s easier to halt unhealthy gambling behaviors because the behavior is more obvious.
Also, another reason it could specifically apply to video games, is that most new digital game have terms and conditions that establish anything players get ingame is worth nothing and you don’t own it. With physical cards, they can typically be returned (of unopened) or at least some of the spent money recouped by reselling. It’s a fundamental difference in products and ownership.
Gambling to own an item vs. gambling to rent the use of an item0 -
clocksstoppe✭✭✭✭✭
✭Bouldercleave wrote: »Seeing as most video games are sold digitally, how would they even enforce this?
So they cannot sell hard copy games retail, how could they POSSIBLY stop online sales to a minor?
All a Company like ZoS would have to do is slap a warning label on it (like anyone reads that stuff), not sell it in retail brick and mortar stores (something that is a dying thing anyway), and put a click through age verification on their online sales.
This legislation wouldn't stop one single sale in my opinion.
It doesn't have to stop sales. It provides a means of enjoining and penalizing violations.
Who are you going to penalize? The game is already an M rating. Only adults are buying it
ESRB is not a law, it's a useless sticker on a box2 -
Reistr_the_Unbroken✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Plus I doubt people would police others on a little label on a video gameclocksstoppe wrote: »Bouldercleave wrote: »Seeing as most video games are sold digitally, how would they even enforce this?
So they cannot sell hard copy games retail, how could they POSSIBLY stop online sales to a minor?
All a Company like ZoS would have to do is slap a warning label on it (like anyone reads that stuff), not sell it in retail brick and mortar stores (something that is a dying thing anyway), and put a click through age verification on their online sales.
This legislation wouldn't stop one single sale in my opinion.
It doesn't have to stop sales. It provides a means of enjoining and penalizing violations.
Who are you going to penalize? The game is already an M rating. Only adults are buying it
ESRB is not a law, it's a useless sticker on a box
0 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Bouldercleave wrote: »Bouldercleave wrote: »Seeing as most video games are sold digitally, how would they even enforce this?
So they cannot sell hard copy games retail, how could they POSSIBLY stop online sales to a minor?
All a Company like ZoS would have to do is slap a warning label on it (like anyone reads that stuff), not sell it in retail brick and mortar stores (something that is a dying thing anyway), and put a click through age verification on their online sales.
This legislation wouldn't stop one single sale in my opinion.
It doesn't have to stop sales. It provides a means of enjoining and penalizing violations.
Again, how would they even be able to enforce that?
With a warning label and age verification the company would be virtually bulletproof against this legislation. If a minor lies about the age verification, the company would no longer be liable.
I'm not trying to be contrary, I simply don't understand how this would even cause a ripple in the pond.
In the same way all unlawful activity conducted over the internet is prosecuted. Investigators investigate, issue subpoenas, and prosecute. The internet does not pose any special problems. In fact, the internet is a rich trove of transaction records that makes compilation of evidence simpler than in-person private sales.
Example: You have several video games you no longer play. You decide to resell them through Facebook. An investigator in Hawaii includes your Facebook offer with the other Facebook offers he or she tracks. A minor in Hawaii purchases one of your games, which happens to include the loot boxes that Hawaii seeks to regulate, and now Hawaii has a basis to prosecute you for violation of this statute.
Simple, really.
0 -
Reistr_the_Unbroken✭✭✭✭✭
✭
So basically make the 24th century like the book 1984, where nobody has any privacy and is being surveillanced 24/7?Bouldercleave wrote: »Bouldercleave wrote: »Seeing as most video games are sold digitally, how would they even enforce this?
So they cannot sell hard copy games retail, how could they POSSIBLY stop online sales to a minor?
All a Company like ZoS would have to do is slap a warning label on it (like anyone reads that stuff), not sell it in retail brick and mortar stores (something that is a dying thing anyway), and put a click through age verification on their online sales.
This legislation wouldn't stop one single sale in my opinion.
It doesn't have to stop sales. It provides a means of enjoining and penalizing violations.
Again, how would they even be able to enforce that?
With a warning label and age verification the company would be virtually bulletproof against this legislation. If a minor lies about the age verification, the company would no longer be liable.
I'm not trying to be contrary, I simply don't understand how this would even cause a ripple in the pond.
In the same way all unlawful activity conducted over the internet is prosecuted. Investigators investigate, issue subpoenas, and prosecute. The internet does not pose any special problems. In fact, the internet is a rich trove of transaction records that makes compilation of evidence simpler than in-person private sales.
Example: You have several video games you no longer play. You decide to resell them through Facebook. An investigator in Hawaii includes your Facebook offer with the other Facebook offers he or she tracks. A minor in Hawaii purchases one of your games, which happens to include the loot boxes that Hawaii seeks to regulate, and now Hawaii has a basis to prosecute you for violation of this statute.
Simple, really.
Um. No thanks.Edited by Reistr_the_Unbroken on February 22, 2019 9:59PM1 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »
So basically make the 24th century like the book 1984, where nobody has any privacy and is being surveillanced 24/7?Bouldercleave wrote: »Bouldercleave wrote: »Seeing as most video games are sold digitally, how would they even enforce this?
So they cannot sell hard copy games retail, how could they POSSIBLY stop online sales to a minor?
All a Company like ZoS would have to do is slap a warning label on it (like anyone reads that stuff), not sell it in retail brick and mortar stores (something that is a dying thing anyway), and put a click through age verification on their online sales.
This legislation wouldn't stop one single sale in my opinion.
It doesn't have to stop sales. It provides a means of enjoining and penalizing violations.
Again, how would they even be able to enforce that?
With a warning label and age verification the company would be virtually bulletproof against this legislation. If a minor lies about the age verification, the company would no longer be liable.
I'm not trying to be contrary, I simply don't understand how this would even cause a ripple in the pond.
In the same way all unlawful activity conducted over the internet is prosecuted. Investigators investigate, issue subpoenas, and prosecute. The internet does not pose any special problems. In fact, the internet is a rich trove of transaction records that makes compilation of evidence simpler than in-person private sales.
Example: You have several video games you no longer play. You decide to resell them through Facebook. An investigator in Hawaii includes your Facebook offer with the other Facebook offers he or she tracks. A minor in Hawaii purchases one of your games, which happens to include the loot boxes that Hawaii seeks to regulate, and now Hawaii has a basis to prosecute you for violation of this statute.
Simple, really.
Um. No thanks.
We're there already. Want a shocker? Look up 'Facebook Pixel'.1 -
Skwor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »
Plus I doubt people would police others on a little label on a video gameclocksstoppe wrote: »Bouldercleave wrote: »Seeing as most video games are sold digitally, how would they even enforce this?
So they cannot sell hard copy games retail, how could they POSSIBLY stop online sales to a minor?
All a Company like ZoS would have to do is slap a warning label on it (like anyone reads that stuff), not sell it in retail brick and mortar stores (something that is a dying thing anyway), and put a click through age verification on their online sales.
This legislation wouldn't stop one single sale in my opinion.
It doesn't have to stop sales. It provides a means of enjoining and penalizing violations.
Who are you going to penalize? The game is already an M rating. Only adults are buying it
ESRB is not a law, it's a useless sticker on a box
And you believe some form of law enforcement is going to stop parents, relatives or friends from buying a 12 to 20 year old a +21 game title?
Who is being unrealistic here?
This is a typical feel good act by politicians for political points, it is not written well enough to be enforceable and those politicians know it.2 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »
Plus I doubt people would police others on a little label on a video gameclocksstoppe wrote: »Bouldercleave wrote: »Seeing as most video games are sold digitally, how would they even enforce this?
So they cannot sell hard copy games retail, how could they POSSIBLY stop online sales to a minor?
All a Company like ZoS would have to do is slap a warning label on it (like anyone reads that stuff), not sell it in retail brick and mortar stores (something that is a dying thing anyway), and put a click through age verification on their online sales.
This legislation wouldn't stop one single sale in my opinion.
It doesn't have to stop sales. It provides a means of enjoining and penalizing violations.
Who are you going to penalize? The game is already an M rating. Only adults are buying it
ESRB is not a law, it's a useless sticker on a box
And you believe some form of law enforcement is going to stop parents, relatives or friends from buying a 12 to 20 year old a +21 game title?
Who is being unrealistic here?
This is a typical feel good act by politicians for political points, it is not written well enough to be enforceable and those politicians know it.
Correct
0 -
Elsonso✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ESO is already an "M" rated game. It should not be sold to minors as it is. So... what's the problem?
Mature is 17+. This law applies to those under 21. ESRB and PEGI do not even go that high.0 -
Reistr_the_Unbroken✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Read what I wrote again because I never said any of that at all.Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »
Plus I doubt people would police others on a little label on a video gameclocksstoppe wrote: »Bouldercleave wrote: »Seeing as most video games are sold digitally, how would they even enforce this?
So they cannot sell hard copy games retail, how could they POSSIBLY stop online sales to a minor?
All a Company like ZoS would have to do is slap a warning label on it (like anyone reads that stuff), not sell it in retail brick and mortar stores (something that is a dying thing anyway), and put a click through age verification on their online sales.
This legislation wouldn't stop one single sale in my opinion.
It doesn't have to stop sales. It provides a means of enjoining and penalizing violations.
Who are you going to penalize? The game is already an M rating. Only adults are buying it
ESRB is not a law, it's a useless sticker on a box
And you believe some form of law enforcement is going to stop parents, relatives or friends from buying a 12 to 20 year old a +21 game title?
Who is being unrealistic here?
This is a typical feel good act by politicians for political points, it is not written well enough to be enforceable and those politicians know it.
In fact I’ll help you with one of my own quotes:Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »
So basically make the 24th century like the book 1984, where nobody has any privacy and is being surveillanced 24/7?Bouldercleave wrote: »Bouldercleave wrote: »Seeing as most video games are sold digitally, how would they even enforce this?
So they cannot sell hard copy games retail, how could they POSSIBLY stop online sales to a minor?
All a Company like ZoS would have to do is slap a warning label on it (like anyone reads that stuff), not sell it in retail brick and mortar stores (something that is a dying thing anyway), and put a click through age verification on their online sales.
This legislation wouldn't stop one single sale in my opinion.
It doesn't have to stop sales. It provides a means of enjoining and penalizing violations.
Again, how would they even be able to enforce that?
With a warning label and age verification the company would be virtually bulletproof against this legislation. If a minor lies about the age verification, the company would no longer be liable.
I'm not trying to be contrary, I simply don't understand how this would even cause a ripple in the pond.
In the same way all unlawful activity conducted over the internet is prosecuted. Investigators investigate, issue subpoenas, and prosecute. The internet does not pose any special problems. In fact, the internet is a rich trove of transaction records that makes compilation of evidence simpler than in-person private sales.
Example: You have several video games you no longer play. You decide to resell them through Facebook. An investigator in Hawaii includes your Facebook offer with the other Facebook offers he or she tracks. A minor in Hawaii purchases one of your games, which happens to include the loot boxes that Hawaii seeks to regulate, and now Hawaii has a basis to prosecute you for violation of this statute.
Simple, really.
Um. No thanks.
So tell me again where I specifically stated anywhere where I “believe some form of law enforcement is going to stop parents”? Because I’m not for that at all in any way, shape or form.0 -
Ri_Khan✭✭✭✭✭
✭Despite what certain individuals here (that obviously have no clue what they're talking about) are claiming, loot crates are not going to be unregulated much longer, it's only a matter of time.
If you'd like to see the process sped up, contact your state's Attorney General and make sure they're aware and informed of the situation.0 -
Bouldercleave✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Despite what certain individuals here (that obviously have no clue what they're talking about) are claiming, loot crates are not going to be unregulated much longer, it's only a matter of time.
If you'd like to see the process sped up, contact your state's Attorney General and make sure they're aware and informed of the situation.
LOL, I'll get my popcorn and wait then.
FAR too much money to be made by corporations (and politicians by lobbyists of those corporations).
Someone will get a fat campaign contribution and this will all slowly disappear. And I'll run out of popcorn waiting for big brother to police my gaming habits.1 -
jainiadral✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I'm wondering if the only real difference we'll see is that ZOS bans Hawai'i residents from accessing the Crown Store. Seems like the quickest, easiest "solution" to dealing with new legislation.
I'm personally not a fan of gamble boxes and loot crates, but I'm not sure if legislation is the correct approach to dealing with them.1
