therift wrote: »

tonemd wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

Adernath wrote: »

ANGEL_BtVS wrote: »

Under UK law, to be considered gambling, prizes have to be either money or have a monetary value.

[...]

Though secondary markets do exist which do monetise loot boxes or Fifa cards, as they are unofficial they don’t count towards the gambling definition. Gambling Commission program director Brad Enright admitted that companies such as games publisher EA faced “a constant battle” against unauthorised secondary markets.

This is a very odd argument from that person you quoted, because on the one hand it apparently assumes that lootboxes do not involve rewards having any monetary value (otherwise it would be gambling), on the other hand it is admitted that there exist a secondary market. But these secondary markets clearly do not work without any monetary value, which means that the rewards in fact DO involve a monetary value.

It is a very lucid and well reasoned legal position. One that was predicted even on these forums months ago by several posters.

Think a bit on your position. Using your line of reasoning(which in truth is the odd reasoning) the courts could outlaw all sports based on the fact that multiple secondary markets use sports outcomes as a gambling mechanism including monetizing the results.

Legal, logical reasoning is a rigorous, deliberate process designed to be specific, otherwise everything would apply to everything in a legal matter.

So if I enter a raffle to win a free burger from Wendy's by buying a raffle ticket, what part of the winnings have to be monetizeable for this to be gambling? Is it the burger itself, or the opportunity to get the burger?

If it's the former, then you can obviously sell a burger, but you could also perhaps sell an account with a bunch of rare items attached to it from opening loot boxes. If it's the latter, then if the party providing the winnings has rules on transferability, then I guess the ruling makes sense.

Are they assuming there is NO way to monetize items obtained from loot boxes, or just no DIRECT way?

A raffle already is gambling, because there is prize, chance, and monetary consideration.

The difference between your analogy and video game loot boxes is this: loot boxes are purchased with in-game currency which can be spent on anything in the game's storefront. The fact that some of the products in the storefront incorporate chance does not ipso facto create gambling.

Further, if the video game company does not provide a means to convert in-game currency back to real world currency, then there is no monetary value or payout for buying a loot crate.

I would go one step further: since the game and all of the products in the game are never delivered into the consumer's possession, it could be argued that purchasing game currency is merely paying for the additional entertainment service of having game features enabled for the consumer's account.

As has been previously suggested, trying to define video game loot boxes as gambling under most jurisdictions' existing laws will not succeed. New legislation or an expansion of current legislation is required.

tonemd wrote: »

therift wrote: »

tonemd wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

Adernath wrote: »

ANGEL_BtVS wrote: »

Under UK law, to be considered gambling, prizes have to be either money or have a monetary value.

[...]

Though secondary markets do exist which do monetise loot boxes or Fifa cards, as they are unofficial they don’t count towards the gambling definition. Gambling Commission program director Brad Enright admitted that companies such as games publisher EA faced “a constant battle” against unauthorised secondary markets.

This is a very odd argument from that person you quoted, because on the one hand it apparently assumes that lootboxes do not involve rewards having any monetary value (otherwise it would be gambling), on the other hand it is admitted that there exist a secondary market. But these secondary markets clearly do not work without any monetary value, which means that the rewards in fact DO involve a monetary value.

It is a very lucid and well reasoned legal position. One that was predicted even on these forums months ago by several posters.

Think a bit on your position. Using your line of reasoning(which in truth is the odd reasoning) the courts could outlaw all sports based on the fact that multiple secondary markets use sports outcomes as a gambling mechanism including monetizing the results.

Legal, logical reasoning is a rigorous, deliberate process designed to be specific, otherwise everything would apply to everything in a legal matter.

So if I enter a raffle to win a free burger from Wendy's by buying a raffle ticket, what part of the winnings have to be monetizeable for this to be gambling? Is it the burger itself, or the opportunity to get the burger?

If it's the former, then you can obviously sell a burger, but you could also perhaps sell an account with a bunch of rare items attached to it from opening loot boxes. If it's the latter, then if the party providing the winnings has rules on transferability, then I guess the ruling makes sense.

Are they assuming there is NO way to monetize items obtained from loot boxes, or just no DIRECT way?

A raffle already is gambling, because there is prize, chance, and monetary consideration.

The difference between your analogy and video game loot boxes is this: loot boxes are purchased with in-game currency which can be spent on anything in the game's storefront. The fact that some of the products in the storefront incorporate chance does not ipso facto create gambling.

Further, if the video game company does not provide a means to convert in-game currency back to real world currency, then there is no monetary value or payout for buying a loot crate.

I would go one step further: since the game and all of the products in the game are never delivered into the consumer's possession, it could be argued that purchasing game currency is merely paying for the additional entertainment service of having game features enabled for the consumer's account.

As has been previously suggested, trying to define video game loot boxes as gambling under most jurisdictions' existing laws will not succeed. New legislation or an expansion of current legislation is required.

Your explanation and Skwor's makes sense if that is that way UK (and I assume US) view the situation. And I suppose that is why Dave n Busters , Chuck E. Cheese , and every crap amusement park and grocery store claw machine can still allow children to participate in games of chance.

Agreed, no way this will change, even if we "think of the children".

BigBragg wrote: »

I think this video does a decent job of covering the subject and transcript. The story isn't just about them not being declared gambling, but why as well as the type of attention they have from regulatory bodies.

https://youtu.be/9WQr2V74Obk

CMDR_Un1k0rn wrote: »

I'm a little sick of the "think of the children" argument.

I do not have kids. I do not care about your "special little Jimmy".

I am taking the ultimate effort to never contribute to the gene-pool. Read: You know exactly what this means I refrain from.

I am quite justified in saying that I shouldn't have to worry about the welfare of kids, as I don't have any. Not my problem.

As for loot crates? I use self-control. It seems ZOS is now doing a sale each season on the 15-crate pack for ESO+ members.

I buy one lot during that sale.

Have you ever purchased a scratch card or played the Lotto? It's something I only do very sparingly, but sometimes the game of chance is fun. Dice games have been around for centuries.

Skwor wrote: »

Adernath wrote: »

ANGEL_BtVS wrote: »

Under UK law, to be considered gambling, prizes have to be either money or have a monetary value.

[...]

Though secondary markets do exist which do monetise loot boxes or Fifa cards, as they are unofficial they don’t count towards the gambling definition. Gambling Commission program director Brad Enright admitted that companies such as games publisher EA faced “a constant battle” against unauthorised secondary markets.

This is a very odd argument from that person you quoted, because on the one hand it apparently assumes that lootboxes do not involve rewards having any monetary value (otherwise it would be gambling), on the other hand it is admitted that there exist a secondary market. But these secondary markets clearly do not work without any monetary value, which means that the rewards in fact DO involve a monetary value.

It is a very lucid and well reasoned legal position. One that was predicted even on these forums months ago by several posters.

Think a bit on your position. Using your line of reasoning(which in truth is the odd reasoning) the courts could outlaw all sports based on the fact that multiple secondary markets use sports outcomes as a gambling mechanism including monetizing the results.

Legal, logical reasoning is a rigorous, deliberate process designed to be specific, otherwise everything would apply to everything in a legal matter.

VaranisArano wrote: »

CMDR_Un1k0rn wrote: »

I'm a little sick of the "think of the children" argument.

I do not have kids. I do not care about your "special little Jimmy".

I am taking the ultimate effort to never contribute to the gene-pool. Read: You know exactly what this means I refrain from.

I am quite justified in saying that I shouldn't have to worry about the welfare of kids, as I don't have any. Not my problem.

As for loot crates? I use self-control. It seems ZOS is now doing a sale each season on the 15-crate pack for ESO+ members.

I buy one lot during that sale.

Have you ever purchased a scratch card or played the Lotto? It's something I only do very sparingly, but sometimes the game of chance is fun. Dice games have been around for centuries.

As I said above, the "self control" argument is for adults. Society generally restricts the ability of children to buy lottery tickets, as you mentioned.

You have no skin in the game when it comes to children, which may explain why you think its a black and white situation of "Something is bad for children? Ban it for everyone!"

As with gambling and alcohol, we see that more often it's a more measured "Something is bad for children? Regulate it or ban it for children." You know that. You can still buy your lottery tickets, while kids can't.

So in the case of loot boxes, we have seen some efforts to ban or regulate the sale of loot boxes and/or micro transactions to minors.

If those efforts ever succeeded, it would hardly prompt game companies to remove a profitable mechanism from everyone. Just like how adults can still buy alcohol and gamble reliant on their own self-control, gaming conpanies would almost certainly still offer loot boxes and microtransactions to adults if new regulations banned them from selling then to minors.

No one is asking you to sign a petition to support one side or the other, but please, don't act like "think of the children" has to be a black and white movement coming to take your adult loot boxes away.

One can be concerned with the impact of loot boxes on children AND still think that adults like you have the right to throw your money away on loot boxes if that's what you really want to do.

therift wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Seems like gambling to me. You play at a game of chance in the hopes of obtaining prizes. That's essentially what gambling is.

Your generalization is incorrect, because you have generalized. Law uses precision language - the mumbo-jumbo legalese we all sneer at - because imprecision can have deleterious unintended consequences.

The three elements of gambling are Prize, Chance, and Consideration. Consideration has a precise legal definition that is just as important as Prize and Chance. Under your generalization, a vast amount of innocuous activity would become unlawful.

Let's take Skwor's Crackerjacks box and prize as an example. There are the elements of Prize and Chance, but there is no Consideration required to win the prize. A box of Crackerjacks has the same price with or without the prize. Therefore it is not gambling.

Jeremy wrote: »

Seems like gambling to me. You play at a game of chance in the hopes of obtaining prizes. That's essentially what gambling is.

As far as the prizes being monetized - it costs crowns to play the game. So there is the monetary value right there. Whether you can convert the actual prizes into legal cash or not doesn't seem particularly relevant to me - especially since people sell their video game accounts all the time and rare prizes obtained through loot boxes could enhance the value of these accounts.

Here, you have misunderstood where 'monetary value' applies, and you have conflated unrelated third party activity with the original activity.

Monetary value, as Consideration, does not apply because the purchase of Crowns is the purchase of game credits that can be converted to a range of entertainment services.

Crown store items as a service have no monetary value, because the game publisher offers no way to convert them back to something of value that can be used elsewhere outside the game. They are an entertainment expenditure, not a Prize. This is absolutely relevant, because without the element of Prize, there is no gambling.

Selling accounts cannot even be considered. The sale of accounts is prohibited by the publisher, is completely outside their control, and provides no benefit whatsoever to the publisher. In fact, sale of an account could be construed as theft by conversion, if a prosecutor wished to spend the resources to prosecute account selling.


The fact that something looks like gambling does not legally make it gambling.

I mentioned earlier that Florida was troubled by a sudden plague of internet cafes that essentially became unlicensed gambling houses. People walked in, paid for internet access, played video poker, and some walked out with cash.

Sounds like gambling, doesn't it? You would be wrong. It was perfectly legal, because the operators carefully studied the law and set up the scheme to isolate Consideration from Prize. The largest operator was eventually prosecuted... for charity fraud, not gambling.

The state Legislature rushed a bill through to update the gambling laws to include the methods developed by the internet cafes, and that scheme is now unlawful. Incidentally, Fantasy Sports Leagues are now unlawful, pay phones are now unlawful, and some of the services provided by Google Nest and Amazon Alexa are now, technically, criminal activity.

Remember when I mentioned unintended consequences? Florida's bill to cure internet cafes was not badly written. It was, however, reactionary legislation in a long line of reactionary legislation to activities people do not like.

A new bill to replace the old patchwork will make its way to the Governor's desk soon. It's not a quick write like the last. But it will be more precise.



edit: the singular form of 'Crackerjacks' is apparently a naughty word

Jeremy wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

CMDR_Un1k0rn wrote: »

I'm a little sick of the "think of the children" argument.

I do not have kids. I do not care about your "special little Jimmy".

I am taking the ultimate effort to never contribute to the gene-pool. Read: You know exactly what this means I refrain from.

I am quite justified in saying that I shouldn't have to worry about the welfare of kids, as I don't have any. Not my problem.

As for loot crates? I use self-control. It seems ZOS is now doing a sale each season on the 15-crate pack for ESO+ members.

I buy one lot during that sale.

Have you ever purchased a scratch card or played the Lotto? It's something I only do very sparingly, but sometimes the game of chance is fun. Dice games have been around for centuries.

As I said above, the "self control" argument is for adults. Society generally restricts the ability of children to buy lottery tickets, as you mentioned.

You have no skin in the game when it comes to children, which may explain why you think its a black and white situation of "Something is bad for children? Ban it for everyone!"

As with gambling and alcohol, we see that more often it's a more measured "Something is bad for children? Regulate it or ban it for children." You know that. You can still buy your lottery tickets, while kids can't.

So in the case of loot boxes, we have seen some efforts to ban or regulate the sale of loot boxes and/or micro transactions to minors.

If those efforts ever succeeded, it would hardly prompt game companies to remove a profitable mechanism from everyone. Just like how adults can still buy alcohol and gamble reliant on their own self-control, gaming conpanies would almost certainly still offer loot boxes and microtransactions to adults if new regulations banned them from selling then to minors.

No one is asking you to sign a petition to support one side or the other, but please, don't act like "think of the children" has to be a black and white movement coming to take your adult loot boxes away.

One can be concerned with the impact of loot boxes on children AND still think that adults like you have the right to throw your money away on loot boxes if that's what you really want to do.

You make a solid argument.

But you have to keep in mind if it was regulated in respect to minors it might open video companies up to potential law suits. Many companies may decide it's just not worth the risks and end the practice in totality. So it could end up affecting adult customers in that way. Being an M-rated game (in theory) means no minors should be playing. But the M rating has not stopped previous games from having lawsuits brought against them. And it's a lot easier to know who your customers are when you meet them face to face as in the case of buying lottery tickets.

therift wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Seems like gambling to me. You play at a game of chance in the hopes of obtaining prizes. That's essentially what gambling is.

Your generalization is incorrect, because you have generalized. Law uses precision language - the mumbo-jumbo legalese we all sneer at - because imprecision can have deleterious unintended consequences.

The three elements of gambling are Prize, Chance, and Consideration. Consideration has a precise legal definition that is just as important as Prize and Chance. Under your generalization, a vast amount of innocuous activity would become unlawful.

Let's take Skwor's Crackerjacks box and prize as an example. There are the elements of Prize and Chance, but there is no Consideration required to win the prize. A box of Crackerjacks has the same price with or without the prize. Therefore it is not gambling.

Jeremy wrote: »

Seems like gambling to me. You play at a game of chance in the hopes of obtaining prizes. That's essentially what gambling is.

As far as the prizes being monetized - it costs crowns to play the game. So there is the monetary value right there. Whether you can convert the actual prizes into legal cash or not doesn't seem particularly relevant to me - especially since people sell their video game accounts all the time and rare prizes obtained through loot boxes could enhance the value of these accounts.

Here, you have misunderstood where 'monetary value' applies, and you have conflated unrelated third party activity with the original activity.

Monetary value, as Consideration, does not apply because the purchase of Crowns is the purchase of game credits that can be converted to a range of entertainment services.

Crown store items as a service have no monetary value, because the game publisher offers no way to convert them back to something of value that can be used elsewhere outside the game. They are an entertainment expenditure, not a Prize. This is absolutely relevant, because without the element of Prize, there is no gambling.

Selling accounts cannot even be considered. The sale of accounts is prohibited by the publisher, is completely outside their control, and provides no benefit whatsoever to the publisher. In fact, sale of an account could be construed as theft by conversion, if a prosecutor wished to spend the resources to prosecute account selling.


The fact that something looks like gambling does not legally make it gambling.

I mentioned earlier that Florida was troubled by a sudden plague of internet cafes that essentially became unlicensed gambling houses. People walked in, paid for internet access, played video poker, and some walked out with cash.

Sounds like gambling, doesn't it? You would be wrong. It was perfectly legal, because the operators carefully studied the law and set up the scheme to isolate Consideration from Prize. The largest operator was eventually prosecuted... for charity fraud, not gambling.

The state Legislature rushed a bill through to update the gambling laws to include the methods developed by the internet cafes, and that scheme is now unlawful. Incidentally, Fantasy Sports Leagues are now unlawful, pay phones are now unlawful, and some of the services provided by Google Nest and Amazon Alexa are now, technically, criminal activity.

Remember when I mentioned unintended consequences? Florida's bill to cure internet cafes was not badly written. It was, however, reactionary legislation in a long line of reactionary legislation to activities people do not like.

A new bill to replace the old patchwork will make its way to the Governor's desk soon. It's not a quick write like the last. But it will be more precise.



edit: the singular form of 'Crackerjacks' is apparently a naughty word

It is gambling. It may not meet the legal specifications (which is basically what I said in that post) but it is gambling nonetheless.

Gambling as a word is not restrained to gambling for cash. When ever you play a game of chance to win prizes it is by definition gambling.

Also: just because something is illegal or not supported by the publisher - that does not mean it loses it's "monetary value". The black market is alive and well.

Jeremy wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

CMDR_Un1k0rn wrote: »

I'm a little sick of the "think of the children" argument.

I do not have kids. I do not care about your "special little Jimmy".

I am taking the ultimate effort to never contribute to the gene-pool. Read: You know exactly what this means I refrain from.

I am quite justified in saying that I shouldn't have to worry about the welfare of kids, as I don't have any. Not my problem.

As for loot crates? I use self-control. It seems ZOS is now doing a sale each season on the 15-crate pack for ESO+ members.

I buy one lot during that sale.

Have you ever purchased a scratch card or played the Lotto? It's something I only do very sparingly, but sometimes the game of chance is fun. Dice games have been around for centuries.

As I said above, the "self control" argument is for adults. Society generally restricts the ability of children to buy lottery tickets, as you mentioned.

You have no skin in the game when it comes to children, which may explain why you think its a black and white situation of "Something is bad for children? Ban it for everyone!"

As with gambling and alcohol, we see that more often it's a more measured "Something is bad for children? Regulate it or ban it for children." You know that. You can still buy your lottery tickets, while kids can't.

So in the case of loot boxes, we have seen some efforts to ban or regulate the sale of loot boxes and/or micro transactions to minors.

If those efforts ever succeeded, it would hardly prompt game companies to remove a profitable mechanism from everyone. Just like how adults can still buy alcohol and gamble reliant on their own self-control, gaming conpanies would almost certainly still offer loot boxes and microtransactions to adults if new regulations banned them from selling then to minors.

No one is asking you to sign a petition to support one side or the other, but please, don't act like "think of the children" has to be a black and white movement coming to take your adult loot boxes away.

One can be concerned with the impact of loot boxes on children AND still think that adults like you have the right to throw your money away on loot boxes if that's what you really want to do.

You make a solid argument.

But you have to keep in mind if it was regulated in respect to minors it might open video companies up to potential law suits. Many companies may decide it's just not worth the risks and end the practice in totality. So it could end up affecting adult customers in that way. Being an M-rated game (in theory) means no minors should be playing. But the M rating has not stopped previous games from having lawsuits brought against them. And it's a lot easier to know who your customers are when you meet them face to face as in the case of buying lottery tickets.

therift wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Seems like gambling to me. You play at a game of chance in the hopes of obtaining prizes. That's essentially what gambling is.

Your generalization is incorrect, because you have generalized. Law uses precision language - the mumbo-jumbo legalese we all sneer at - because imprecision can have deleterious unintended consequences.

The three elements of gambling are Prize, Chance, and Consideration. Consideration has a precise legal definition that is just as important as Prize and Chance. Under your generalization, a vast amount of innocuous activity would become unlawful.

Let's take Skwor's Crackerjacks box and prize as an example. There are the elements of Prize and Chance, but there is no Consideration required to win the prize. A box of Crackerjacks has the same price with or without the prize. Therefore it is not gambling.

Jeremy wrote: »

Seems like gambling to me. You play at a game of chance in the hopes of obtaining prizes. That's essentially what gambling is.

As far as the prizes being monetized - it costs crowns to play the game. So there is the monetary value right there. Whether you can convert the actual prizes into legal cash or not doesn't seem particularly relevant to me - especially since people sell their video game accounts all the time and rare prizes obtained through loot boxes could enhance the value of these accounts.

Here, you have misunderstood where 'monetary value' applies, and you have conflated unrelated third party activity with the original activity.

Monetary value, as Consideration, does not apply because the purchase of Crowns is the purchase of game credits that can be converted to a range of entertainment services.

Crown store items as a service have no monetary value, because the game publisher offers no way to convert them back to something of value that can be used elsewhere outside the game. They are an entertainment expenditure, not a Prize. This is absolutely relevant, because without the element of Prize, there is no gambling.

Selling accounts cannot even be considered. The sale of accounts is prohibited by the publisher, is completely outside their control, and provides no benefit whatsoever to the publisher. In fact, sale of an account could be construed as theft by conversion, if a prosecutor wished to spend the resources to prosecute account selling.


The fact that something looks like gambling does not legally make it gambling.

I mentioned earlier that Florida was troubled by a sudden plague of internet cafes that essentially became unlicensed gambling houses. People walked in, paid for internet access, played video poker, and some walked out with cash.

Sounds like gambling, doesn't it? You would be wrong. It was perfectly legal, because the operators carefully studied the law and set up the scheme to isolate Consideration from Prize. The largest operator was eventually prosecuted... for charity fraud, not gambling.

The state Legislature rushed a bill through to update the gambling laws to include the methods developed by the internet cafes, and that scheme is now unlawful. Incidentally, Fantasy Sports Leagues are now unlawful, pay phones are now unlawful, and some of the services provided by Google Nest and Amazon Alexa are now, technically, criminal activity.

Remember when I mentioned unintended consequences? Florida's bill to cure internet cafes was not badly written. It was, however, reactionary legislation in a long line of reactionary legislation to activities people do not like.

A new bill to replace the old patchwork will make its way to the Governor's desk soon. It's not a quick write like the last. But it will be more precise.



edit: the singular form of 'Crackerjacks' is apparently a naughty word

It is gambling. It may not meet the legal specifications (which is basically what I said in that post) but it is gambling nonetheless.

Gambling as a word is not restrained to gambling for cash. When ever you play a game of chance to win prizes it is by definition gambling.

Also: just because something is illegal or not supported by the publisher - that does not mean it loses it's "monetary value". The black market is alive and well.

The black market for stolen goods is likewise alive and well. The existence of a stolen goods market does not make the victim of robbery a party to it.

You're viewing the definition of gambling from a non-legal perspective. I agree with your assessment. Throwing loot boxes into that statutory gambling bucket isn't the correct solution. A different approach is needed.

Sounds like we basically agree then. I wasn't trying to suggest that ZoS would be a party to it - only that items did not lose their value solely because it was obtained illegally.

Skwor wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

CMDR_Un1k0rn wrote: »

I'm a little sick of the "think of the children" argument.

I do not have kids. I do not care about your "special little Jimmy".

I am taking the ultimate effort to never contribute to the gene-pool. Read: You know exactly what this means I refrain from.

I am quite justified in saying that I shouldn't have to worry about the welfare of kids, as I don't have any. Not my problem.

As for loot crates? I use self-control. It seems ZOS is now doing a sale each season on the 15-crate pack for ESO+ members.

I buy one lot during that sale.

Have you ever purchased a scratch card or played the Lotto? It's something I only do very sparingly, but sometimes the game of chance is fun. Dice games have been around for centuries.

As I said above, the "self control" argument is for adults. Society generally restricts the ability of children to buy lottery tickets, as you mentioned.

You have no skin in the game when it comes to children, which may explain why you think its a black and white situation of "Something is bad for children? Ban it for everyone!"

As with gambling and alcohol, we see that more often it's a more measured "Something is bad for children? Regulate it or ban it for children." You know that. You can still buy your lottery tickets, while kids can't.

So in the case of loot boxes, we have seen some efforts to ban or regulate the sale of loot boxes and/or micro transactions to minors.

If those efforts ever succeeded, it would hardly prompt game companies to remove a profitable mechanism from everyone. Just like how adults can still buy alcohol and gamble reliant on their own self-control, gaming conpanies would almost certainly still offer loot boxes and microtransactions to adults if new regulations banned them from selling then to minors.

No one is asking you to sign a petition to support one side or the other, but please, don't act like "think of the children" has to be a black and white movement coming to take your adult loot boxes away.

One can be concerned with the impact of loot boxes on children AND still think that adults like you have the right to throw your money away on loot boxes if that's what you really want to do.

Enough of the "for the children" crap. I have raised 3 very successful ones. It is absolutly the parents responsibilty to not let children play M rated games which is what ESO is.

The last thing anyone should ever want is a nanny start acting as the default parents for anyone's child.

"For the children" in this discussion is the worst kind of false emotional appeal and lands very solidly in the logical fallacy of arguments catagory.

All it does is attempt to make those who do not agree appear to be heartless, there is no reasoning it is purely an emotional attack.

Don't get yourself twisted up arguing over something I didnt say.

I'm arguing that a more nuanced version of that "think of the children" argument is more realistic:

"Games that market themselves to children and sell loot boxes and/or micro-transactions to children should face greater regulation because of the harmful impact that addictive monetization strategies can have on children."

The above is something we're seeing brought up in legislation in the U.S. - though who knows if the bill will go anywhere, Congress being what it is.

To address your specific comments about ESO, this game is M-rated and doesnt exactly market itself to children, so cool your jets. No one sensible is arguing that banning Crown Crates in particular is somehow going to benefit children


But ESO ain't the only game on the market that uses loot boxes.

So if you don't want to hear the "think about the children" argument, you best start pushing the gaming industry to self-regulate how they monetize games marketed to children and to enact better parental controls for those games.

Or don't, if it doesnt bother you. Just be prepared for these pushes for better regulation to continue.

Good luck.

No your still being a sophist, more nuanced still means "think of the children" and avoids any attempt at real reason. ESO is rated M glad you agree with that. No children should be playing, if parents let them it is on the parents and not the responsibility of any government to step in and play oversight for poor parents. PERIOD.

Since you agree ESO is rated M, who cares then on the ESO forum what other games may be doing? Go discuss those games on their forums.

I see no point discussing other games practices and potential gambling issues on an ESO forum, I mean just "think of the children" who may be on these forums reading your posts and possibly tempted to try those other games. Shouldn't we not mention them to avoid tempting "the children?"