State of Hawaii introduces anti-gambling restrictions on video games

Alinhbo_Tyaka

A lot will depend upon how they classify the loot boxes. I can foresee a situation similar to carnival games. In some you pay for a chance in what is considered a game of skill. In these there is no guarantee of a prize but it isn't classified as gambling due to the skill requirement. So a quick change to require a skill test fixes this issue. The other is games like the rubber ducks. You pay for a chance to pick a duck and see its number. They all win a prize of some monetary value so the only gambling is whether you chose well or poorly. I liken the crates to this type of game so therefore in the US is perfectly legal.

Prof_Bawbag

Yeah, something a lot of people miss in these frenzies is it's only illegal for a store to sell age restricted games to under age people. It is not illegal for under age people to actually play the games. Similar to alcohol laws in many countries. For example, here in the UK it is illegal for someone under 18 to buy alcohol, attempt to buy alcohol or to be sold alcohol. (there's a small exception to this for 16 and 17 year olds if they're having a beer or wine with a meal, but the adult still has to buy the drink) However, it's not illegal for them to drink alcohol at home and within the company of family members.

Reistr_the_Unbroken

Bouldercleave wrote: »

Ri_Khan wrote: »

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.

Lmao I wrote: “So basically make the 24th century like the book 1984, where nobody has any privacy and is being surveillanced 24/7?

Um. No thanks.”

And someone assumed I believe that a “law enforcement is going to stop parents, relatives or friends from buying a 12 to 20 year old a +21 game title”

Lmao no. I was comparing the excuse that the government should help with someone else’s gambling problem to a fictional book where a town/the entire world and everyone in it was under surveillance.

Vulsahdaal

Jhalin wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Holycannoli wrote: »

AlnilamE wrote: »

So if this passes kids in Hawaii won't be able to buy Trading Card packs?

It says video game specifically so card games aren't included.

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.

Too easy? Are you serious? If the parents dont take basic safety precautions with their cards and make it "too easy" for children to get hold of the cards and rack up thousands of dollars on it, then Id say they very much deserve the bill they get.

Maybe it will be a wake-up call for them that they need to take some responsibility for their cards and their children.

Perhaps it would be a good time as well to pay some attention to what their children are doing/playing, not to mention teaching their children that stealing is wrong, and stealing from your own parents is a near death sentence..

Blacknight841

It doesn't matter if they introduce the law or not. All this would do is force this game and all other games that contain loot crates to be rated as AO (21+). Which will lead to the following exchange at a retailer.

Underage Customer: (brings game to the register)
Employee: (Addressing the guardian parent) "Just to let you know this game is rated AO for gambling."
Guardian Customer: Parent on the phone. "Hold on (talking to the phone)", "Yes that's fine. Can we hurry this up" (Talking to the employee)
Employee: (ID check on parent. Pass)
Guardian Customer: (Pays for the game)
Underage Customer: (walks away with newly purchased game)

Then you have the issue of the account. Game Asks:
- Are you our the age of 21?"
(Press box to continue)
Congratulations on your new account!

... Total effect on the situation ... ZERO

If all games that contain loot crates gets a higher rating tier. Then the mean of the "AAA" games will all be at a higher rating. Thus lowering the overall severity of the rating. "If you want to be like Johnny on the end of the street who is allowed to play GAME X. Your parent has to buy you GAME X"

Good to know that the government is wasting time on this. If they want to make something like this actually effect the gamers. Each gamer has to have an identification card or social security card associated with all account creations for all websites, games and so on. To verify and confirm age. Otherwise it's pointless and just gives companies the security they need to make the sales and even more aggressively market their crates. "They agreed to the terms of use. Not our problem. We did our part."

Bouldercleave

Blacknight841 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they introduce the law or not. All this would do is force this game and all other games that contain loot crates to be rater as AO (21+). Which will lead to the following exchange at a retailer.

Underage Customer: (brings game to the register)
Employee: (Addressing the guardian parent) "Just to let you know this game is rated AO for gambling."
Guardian Customer: Parent on the phone. "Hold on (talking to the phone)", "Yes that's fine. Can we hurry this up" (Talking to the employee)
Employee: (ID check on parent. Pass)
Guardian Customer: (Pays for the game)
Underage Customer: (walks away with newly purchased game)

Then you have the issue of the account. Game Asks:
- Are you our the age of 21?"
(Press box to continue)
Congratulations on your new account!

... Total effect on the situation ... ZERO

Exactly - and even more so now because you don't even have to go to an actual retailer to purchase the games anymore.

You can just skip right to:

Then you have the issue of the account. Game Asks:
- Are you our the age of 21?"
(Press box to continue)
Congratulations on your new account!

... Total effect on the situation ... ZERO

Elsonso

jainiadral wrote: »

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.

No. Text of the law says, "It shall be unlawful for any retailer to sell to any person under twenty-one years of age a video game..."

The company that sells ESO (Bethesda, Valve, Microsoft, Sony, etc) will have to check ages, but outside of that, anyone who has already purchased the game prior to enactment of the law should be fine.

Of course, I am not a lawyer. Or a politician. If I were either, Section 1 of that law would not read like a high school essay.

Jhalin

Vulsahdaal wrote: »

Jhalin wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Holycannoli wrote: »

AlnilamE wrote: »

So if this passes kids in Hawaii won't be able to buy Trading Card packs?

It says video game specifically so card games aren't included.

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.

Too easy? Are you serious? If the parents dont take basic safety precautions with their cards and make it "too easy" for children to get hold of the cards and rack up thousands of dollars on it, then Id say they very much deserve the bill they get.

Maybe it will be a wake-up call for them that they need to take some responsibility for their cards and their children.

Perhaps it would be a good time as well to pay some attention to what their children are doing/playing, not to mention teaching their children that stealing is wrong, and stealing from your own parents is a near death sentence..

Ok, to phrase it differently since I don’t think the point was really made.

Digital goods can amount incredibly high costs at the click of a button and few typed numbers.

Physical goods cannot do this. Parents can see the evidence of a spree of buying trading cards, they cannot see the evidence of a $100 credit card purchase unless they compulsively check their bank account every hour.

They cannot “take responsibility” when video games provide no immediate or physical indicator for purchases and also do not allow for responsible parties to refund the purchases due to being digital in nature and immediately distributed before any action can be taken.

With how videogames process payments, there is no option for parents to step in and stop a payment that’s already been completed even if they do realize what’s happened.

Furthermore: these laws need to be implemented in order to require odds to be published, because “random” in games is very easily manipulated. Never forget the ~50% drop rate Nix-Hounds

jainiadral

@lordrichter

Well, that'll teach me to read things before blathering Maybe. So the checkbox scenario above will be the impact.

Meh.

The law seems like a huge waste of time, TBH.

Edited for quoting the wrong poster. Need to stop forum-ing on my tablet.

D0PAMINE

I doubt an age restriction will do much when you can easily buy the game online. There are no hard verification checks to validate your age.

Ohtimbar

The gamble box salad days must end sooner or later. The industry isn't likely to police itself (do they ever?) so regulation seems inevitable, even in the states. I hope they enjoy the gravy train before it derails.

Skwor

Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »

clocksstoppe wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

therift 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

Plus I doubt people would police others on a little label on a video game

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.

Read what I wrote again because I never said any of that at all.

In fact I’ll help you with one of my own quotes:

Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Bouldercleave wrote: »

therift 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.

So basically make the 24th century like the book 1984, where nobody has any privacy and is being surveillanced 24/7?

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.

Wow, can you not tell a question from someone quoting? I never said you said that. I was using a rhetorical device to make the point that the law is about as efficacious as the current laws preventing minors form using any other product parents or friends would be willing to purchase for them.

I can tell discussing the law with you is pointless. You just do not have the depth to follow an argument.

kargen27

clocksstoppe wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Holycannoli wrote: »

AlnilamE wrote: »

So if this passes kids in Hawaii won't be able to buy Trading Card packs?

It says video game specifically so card games aren't included.

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.

Crown crates have a certain number of items in them but you don't know which items you might get. A pack of trading cards has a certain number of cards in them but you have no idea which cards you are going to get. The cards are worth actual real currency and the worth can vary greatly. Children can buy packs of sports cards in all kinds of places. If crown crates are gambling then so is buying a pack of baseball cards. Video companies can make the argument they are being singled out.

Gnortranermara

Blacknight841 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they introduce the law or not. All this would do is force this game and all other games that contain loot crates to be rated as AO (21+). Which will lead to the following exchange at a retailer.

Underage Customer: (brings game to the register)
Employee: (Addressing the guardian parent) "Just to let you know this game is rated AO for gambling."
Guardian Customer: Parent on the phone. "Hold on (talking to the phone)", "Yes that's fine. Can we hurry this up" (Talking to the employee)
Employee: (ID check on parent. Pass)
Guardian Customer: (Pays for the game)
Underage Customer: (walks away with newly purchased game)

Then you have the issue of the account. Game Asks:
- Are you our the age of 21?"
(Press box to continue)
Congratulations on your new account!

... Total effect on the situation ... ZERO

In that case, sure, but you only described one case. You described a parent who doesn't care. You did not describe a responsible consumer who would appreciate being informed, and put the game back on the shelf, have an important talk with their kid, and/or lock down parental controls. Your situation is realistic enough, but much less common. People generally understand that kids could accidentally (or on purpose) spend a ton of cash on online games and most parents actively take precautions. An extra notice at the retailer isn't a bad thing.

kargen27

SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »

Blacknight841 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they introduce the law or not. All this would do is force this game and all other games that contain loot crates to be rated as AO (21+). Which will lead to the following exchange at a retailer.

Underage Customer: (brings game to the register)
Employee: (Addressing the guardian parent) "Just to let you know this game is rated AO for gambling."
Guardian Customer: Parent on the phone. "Hold on (talking to the phone)", "Yes that's fine. Can we hurry this up" (Talking to the employee)
Employee: (ID check on parent. Pass)
Guardian Customer: (Pays for the game)
Underage Customer: (walks away with newly purchased game)

Then you have the issue of the account. Game Asks:
- Are you our the age of 21?"
(Press box to continue)
Congratulations on your new account!

... Total effect on the situation ... ZERO

In that case, sure, but you only described one case. You described a parent who doesn't care. You did not describe a responsible consumer who would appreciate being informed, and put the game back on the shelf, have an important talk with their kid, and/or lock down parental controls. Your situation is realistic enough, but much less common. People generally understand that kids could accidentally (or on purpose) spend a ton of cash on online games and most parents actively take precautions. An extra notice at the retailer isn't a bad thing.

When the PMRC demanded warning labels be put on album covers most the recording companies agreed eventually. If the stickers had any affect on sales at all it was a slight increase in albums that contained the stickers.

I can see a problem with children spending money in a game without parents permission but I'm not sure that is an issue best tackled by forcing it on the gaming industry. A cousin let her son play a game on her tablet that simulated an aquarium. He managed to spend $600 on fish when she wasn't watching. The company agreed to return the money but they didn't have to. The solution might be to require a 2nd password for online transactions with a credit card to help lock children from using their parents card associated with the game account.

Thevampirenight

Well, there is loopholes, With Eso crowncrates, it isn't as bad compared to Cryptic/Perfect World lockboxes only the very high legendary apex mounts can't be bought with crown gems. I think they would maybe have to change it to where they have to put those into the crowngems as well and reveal the chances of getting them. As those are true gambling to get. Also yeah I think they should be required to reveal the rng chances of getting each item. Maybe being required to improve chances. So they do get money off of this, people buying these crates, but making it so it isn't as bad and players are not required to spend thousands to get a chance of getting a mount they want.

What I think they might do to get around this, would be one to make all items crown gem buyable. Either improve the chances or add other means of getting those same items. They are targeting with these laws is the exploiting of players to get lots of money with very poor rng lootboxes for an item they want the most but have to spend hundreds or thousands in order to get while not focusing on other things to make those games fun to play and basically using casino mechanics. What they could do to curb it is require them to give at least a least a 25 percent or 35 percent chance of payout for the the top rng boxes rewards that typically might only have a 1 percent chance or even half that to get. Could be the best solution here. There is other means of buying the crates in game right now through the crown gift exchange. Which is allowed. Since crowncrates are 400 per crate. Right now to buy them would be 80k at the current price of 200 gold per crown. The problem with legislation is there is loopholes to get around it.

As for the age requirements, I think some countries do require people to be 21 to purchase eso and other games like it already so it isn't something they have not seen before. I don't think this would hinder them but I think zenimax would be required to show the crowncrate chances if that law passes. I think it wouldn't as much be as a problem for Zenimax as they have multiple ways of getting income but this would effect other companies that depend on those lootboxes like Perfect World/Cryptic. Possibly Ea, and others that abuse the lootcrate system. I think Zenimax started doing it because it gives them income and it is a goldmine that is why they added the crowncrates, but so far the have only really added cosmetics and potions, riding lessons and other things.

Nothing in these crown crates is truly pay to win and most of the junk can be converted into gems to buy the items the players want. Other companies do not do this and with the crown gifting system players can sell the crates to other players for gold. I think it might be more problematic if states start banning games that have lootcrates from being sold or played by those living in those states. I think Zenimax would be in a better position compared to other gaming companies and mmos who use the lootcrate/lockbox system as a main source of income. As they have other means of getting money because its not free to play. Players still have to buy the game. They also make income off of subscriptions and crowns being bought.

xxthir13enxx

Zathras wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

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.

Wait....you mean Gina isn’t the Head of the Company, yet!?!?
No wonder there are so many problems in game...when will ZoS learn!?!?!

LegacyDM

therift wrote: »

Gumball machines will be safe, as

LegacyDM wrote: »

Zathras wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

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?

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.

Relax dude the people we interface with regularly are on the forums or try to in any case, work in the same HQ office. Matt firor, game director, who also happens to be on the board of directors should be informed. Im pretty sure he would have a vested interest in stuff like this because if the legislation goes into affect if could have an impact on their bottom line. or at least they can develop a strategy to plan if other states jump on the bandwagon. I only choose Gina because she actually reads the forums and sometimes responds. She’s more than just a moderator. She is suppose to relay and listen to community feedback.

So get off your high horse and ditch the condescending attitude for me trying to get the word out in an easy but reliable manner rather than it getting lost in some black hole email adress trying to contact them through some red tape website address.

I’m only trying to help here and people like you want to slam me with an attitude for my communication approach rather than actually talk about the issue.

Ravena

Sometimes I forget Hawaii is an actual place.

ArchMikem

Skwor wrote: »

Read the legislation. As written it will not impact ESO crates at all.

2. The legislation only limits the sale of the game itself to those over 21, it does not limit the sale of loot crates.

No retailer ever abides by those laws whatsoever. I was in line for a CoD once, obviously rated 17+ and there was this little kid ahead of me with his older sister. Damn brat had his sister, who claims to had just turned 18, purchase the game for him, and when the clerk handed the case to the girl, the kid snatched it from her like it was candy.

When I went up to the desk I joked "Isn't it illegal to sell the game to that kid?" And I swear to God the two Gamestop employees gave me a look like I was gonna call the Cops on em.

Royaji wrote: »

ESO is already an "M" rated game. It should not be sold to minors as it is. So... what's the problem?

Minors get their grubby hands on the game anyway?

Vandril

Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »

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?

Since I didn't see anyone answer your question, yet...

You cannot be penalized for breaking a law that did not exist at the time of the action taken. Since the game would have been purchased before the law was put into place, the action was legal and no penalization can be forced upon you. The game cannot and will not be taken from you. It is not and will never be illegal, according to this particular law, to play the game even under the age of 21.

Once the proposed law is in place, no one under the age of 21 can purchase the game from then on. Not 18. Not 19. Not even 20. 21 or older.

However, the law says nothing about those under the age of 21 playing the game, so that is technically still allowed. The law does forbid, however, anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing Crowns or Crown Crates, even if they are allowed to play the game.

Edit: I was incorrect about the strikethrough text. I had misread part of the proposed law. As proposed, the law does nothing to purchase of cash shop currency or lootboxes. It only restricts the purchase of any game that sells them.

magikarper

jazsper77 wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

Read the legislation. As written it will not impact ESO crates at all.

To simply cover it.

1. The crates have no mechanism to cash out which is specifically mentioned in the legislation.
2. The legislation only limits the sale of the game itself to those over 21, it does not limit the sale of loot crates.

Just those two points alone renders the whole issue moot. There is a bit more making it a non issue for ESO but I'll leave that to you to work out.

Oh look the white knight wanna be lawyer who thinks he knows Law. Lmfao

Which part of Skwor's analysis do you disagree with? I'm sure you weren't simply making an ad hominum attack to derail a real conversation.

Holycannoli

jainiadral wrote: »

@lordrichter

Well, that'll teach me to read things before blathering Maybe. So the checkbox scenario above will be the impact.

Meh.

The law seems like a huge waste of time, TBH.

Edited for quoting the wrong poster. Need to stop forum-ing on my tablet.

This law is largely a waste of time yes, but it's just the beginning. I think it's purpose is to get the ball rolling and get people talking about this issue so they can work on regulating it properly.

Games like ESO aren't the real issue. It's mobile games and games like FIFA and EA/Activision in general that are what caused this.

Genomic

Holycannoli wrote: »

jainiadral wrote: »

@lordrichter

Well, that'll teach me to read things before blathering Maybe. So the checkbox scenario above will be the impact.

Meh.

The law seems like a huge waste of time, TBH.

Edited for quoting the wrong poster. Need to stop forum-ing on my tablet.

This law is largely a waste of time yes, but it's just the beginning. I think it's purpose is to get the ball rolling and get people talking about this issue so they can work on regulating it properly.

Games like ESO aren't the real issue. It's mobile games and games like FIFA and EA/Activision in general that are what caused this.

Games like ESO aren't the worst offenders, but it's still manipulative and predatory. Just sell the digital goods directly ZOS, instead of hiding it behind slot machine tactics. You can still milk whales that way, but you won't be so blatantly preying on addicts.

Suddwrath

Genomic wrote: »

Games like ESO aren't the worst offenders, but it's still manipulative and predatory. Just sell the digital goods directly ZOS, instead of hiding it behind slot machine tactics. You can still milk whales that way, but you won't be so blatantly preying on addicts.

That, along with it affecting children, is ultimately what the debate is about. There are people with Addictive Personality Disorder and these loot boxes are a predatory marketing scheme which can harm them. Most people with the disorder are at least aware of it and can therefore limit their exposure (such as not even going to a casino in the first place). So the legislation which would have required games that had loot boxes in them to display: "Warning: contains in-game purchases and gambling-like mechanisms which may be harmful or addictive" would have been a step in the right direction.

starkerealm

Skwor wrote: »

Read the legislation. As written it will not impact ESO crates at all.

To simply cover it.

1. The crates have no mechanism to cash out which is specifically mentioned in the legislation.
2. The legislation only limits the sale of the game itself to those over 21, it does not limit the sale of loot crates.

Just those two points alone renders the whole issue moot. There is a bit more making it a non issue for ESO but I'll leave that to you to work out.

On 1, the act of opening the crate to receive digital items is sufficient to satisfy the statute. "Cashing out," in this case includes receiving the items within.

The second point is mostly correct. Though the specific definition provided under the statute is so broad, that Crown codes might run afoul of it. At the same time, the specific definition of, "video game," is so broad it might not stand up to judicial scrutiny. I mean, the whole thing might not, but that one in particular.

Skwor

starkerealm wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

Read the legislation. As written it will not impact ESO crates at all.

To simply cover it.

1. The crates have no mechanism to cash out which is specifically mentioned in the legislation.
2. The legislation only limits the sale of the game itself to those over 21, it does not limit the sale of loot crates.

Just those two points alone renders the whole issue moot. There is a bit more making it a non issue for ESO but I'll leave that to you to work out.

On 1, the act of opening the crate to receive digital items is sufficient to satisfy the statute. "Cashing out," in this case includes receiving the items within.

The second point is mostly correct. Though the specific definition provided under the statute is so broad, that Crown codes might run afoul of it. At the same time, the specific definition of, "video game," is so broad it might not stand up to judicial scrutiny. I mean, the whole thing might not, but that one in particular.

Ya, I went both ways at first for item 1 but fell out more conservative under the avoidance of arbitrariness (via the 5 general rule of law principles)

And of course I agree with the second.

In a nutshell it is poorly written law which has become the norm for contemporary legislators.

starkerealm

Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »

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?

No.

But, what's goofy about this is, the way it's written, it doesn't really do what it's supposed to do.

So, here:

§481B- Video games; restrictions. (a) It shall be unlawful for any retailer to sell to any person under twenty-one years of age a video game that contains a system of further purchasing:

(1) A randomized reward or rewards; or

(2) A virtual item which can be redeemed to directly or indirectly receive a randomized reward or rewards.

(b) For the purpose of this section:

"Retailer" means any person who offers video games for sale, including resale by the purchaser, through any means, including sales outlets, catalogs, or the Internet.

"Video game" means an object or device that stores recorded data or instructions, receives data or instructions generated by a person who uses it, and, by processing the data or instructions, creates an interactive game capable of being played, viewed, or experienced on or through a computer, gaming system, console, or other technology."

Okay, "unlawful to sell," means this is just a point of sale issue. Copies in the wild, given out, rented, or otherwise distributed aren't covered. There's no round up of contraband here. Just, you need to be 21 to buy the game.

So, read section A on its own, with headers 1 and 2 as alternate tests. "IF either (a1) OR (b1) == 1, THEN."

Section B just defines "retailer," and "video game." Purchasing is never defined. That may be defined elsewhere in the Hawaii code, but here, it's just, "you purchase something." It never specifies a micro-transaction system. Meaning a game with randomized drop boxes purchased with in-game currency, like ESO's Regional Boxes may actually violate this statute.

What's baffling to me, and this may be defined elsewhere, is that F2P titles, where no cash is paid up front, aren't affected. So a mobile game with predatory P2W loot boxes can' continue business as usual, because there's never a sale.

So Fortnite or Apex Legends are in the clear because you never buy the game. You download the game for free, then buy the currency later. This applies doubly for any mobile f2p games. On consoles, because there's an extra layer of abstraction, between the microtransaction currency purchased and the game, any argument on those sales would run into serious First Amendment challenges, because it would be an all or nothing thing. At that point, it'll just be the Leland Yee case all over again.

Open question if this even applies to expansion packs. Since those don't include the base game, they might not meet the definition of a video game for the statute.

I'd be honestly shocked if this can pass the least restrictive test to get past the first amendment.

therift

LegacyDM wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Gumball machines will be safe, as

LegacyDM wrote: »

Zathras wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

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?

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.

Relax dude the people we interface with regularly are on the forums or try to in any case, work in the same HQ office. Matt firor, game director, who also happens to be on the board of directors should be informed. Im pretty sure he would have a vested interest in stuff like this because if the legislation goes into affect if could have an impact on their bottom line. or at least they can develop a strategy to plan if other states jump on the bandwagon. I only choose Gina because she actually reads the forums and sometimes responds. She’s more than just a moderator. She is suppose to relay and listen to community feedback.

So get off your high horse and ditch the condescending attitude for me trying to get the word out in an easy but reliable manner rather than it getting lost in some black hole email adress trying to contact them through some red tape website address.

I’m only trying to help here and people like you want to slam me with an attitude for my communication approach rather than actually talk about the issue.

Lol. Calm down. There was nothing in my post that should cause you to respond in this manner.

Skwor

starkerealm wrote: »

Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »

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?

No.

But, what's goofy about this is, the way it's written, it doesn't really do what it's supposed to do.

So, here:

§481B- Video games; restrictions. (a) It shall be unlawful for any retailer to sell to any person under twenty-one years of age a video game that contains a system of further purchasing:

(1) A randomized reward or rewards; or

(2) A virtual item which can be redeemed to directly or indirectly receive a randomized reward or rewards.

(b) For the purpose of this section:

"Retailer" means any person who offers video games for sale, including resale by the purchaser, through any means, including sales outlets, catalogs, or the Internet.

"Video game" means an object or device that stores recorded data or instructions, receives data or instructions generated by a person who uses it, and, by processing the data or instructions, creates an interactive game capable of being played, viewed, or experienced on or through a computer, gaming system, console, or other technology."

Okay, "unlawful to sell," means this is just a point of sale issue. Copies in the wild, given out, rented, or otherwise distributed aren't covered. There's no round up of contraband here. Just, you need to be 21 to buy the game.

So, read section A on its own, with headers 1 and 2 as alternate tests. "IF either (a1) OR (b1) == 1, THEN."

Section B just defines "retailer," and "video game." Purchasing is never defined. That may be defined elsewhere in the Hawaii code, but here, it's just, "you purchase something." It never specifies a micro-transaction system. Meaning a game with randomized drop boxes purchased with in-game currency, like ESO's Regional Boxes may actually violate this statute.

What's baffling to me, and this may be defined elsewhere, is that F2P titles, where no cash is paid up front, aren't affected. So a mobile game with predatory P2W loot boxes can' continue business as usual, because there's never a sale.

So Fortnite or Apex Legends are in the clear because you never buy the game. You download the game for free, then buy the currency later. This applies doubly for any mobile f2p games. On consoles, because there's an extra layer of abstraction, between the microtransaction currency purchased and the game, any argument on those sales would run into serious First Amendment challenges, because it would be an all or nothing thing. At that point, it'll just be the Leland Yee case all over again.

Open question if this even applies to expansion packs. Since those don't include the base game, they might not meet the definition of a video game for the statute.

I'd be honestly shocked if this can pass the least restrictive test to get past the first amendment.

And this is likely an analysis from a trained legal professional, whereas I must admit I am an amateur.

I would guess this is intentionally written poorly such that it basically aligns with the current game rating system age restrictions. This way the legislation would have no impact but the pols can take credit for doing something.