End of Loot Boxes in UK?

Nemesis7884 · September 2019

Coolits wrote: »

YongYea has put an excellent video up of him actively reading through the committees findings for anyone interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKhSe6LcW-Q

YEAH OUT

Tandor · September 2019

MJallday wrote: »

They are but if you read the article and indeed listened to the MP on Radio 5 yesterday who was presenting it, this legislation will go hand in hand with age verification services , and since there is a belief (which I don’t share btw) that there is no real foolproof worldwide AVS, then a blanket ban would be imposed , affecting both under and over 18s

The interview is on yesterday’s (thursdays)radio 5 live breakfast on i player if you want to listen

The UK Government has been trying to tie access to adult sites to age verification services and has failed thus far. They keep having to delay it because it's unworkable and yet easily got round. If the present Prime MInister manages to stay in office he is pledged to get rid of the nanny state, not add to it. Both lootboxes and adult sites require some parental responsibility, not government interference.

GDOFWR420 · September 2019

Hapexamendios wrote: »

So loot boxes take priority over Brexit? Interesting.

Shows you were their government's priorities are, not like ours are any better. Just saying.

Narvuntien · September 2019

Both Jim Stirling and Yong Yea Videos point out that it isn't just about children, so its not "Bad Parenting" there are problem gamblers, there is the mentality impaired adults, people on the spectrum, and just straight depression that can all lead to compulsive spending

Plus parents just have no idea that they have to supervise their children when playing a soccer/football game, I mean a parent might supervise a young teenager for a few hours see no problem with allowing them to play then have them discover the loot boxes later on since it isn't a direct part of the game. It is unfair for parents to keep up with the industry monetization.

edit: yep I know the UK parliament is a bit preoccupied so it will be a while before actual laws are put down but we might have some games developed knowing that they cannot use lootboxes and therefore don't use them which is good for gamers. atm we have the medium-sized (AA) studios that are making money and good games without needing these monetization models

nafensoriel · September 2019

MJallday wrote: »

They are but if you read the article and indeed listened to the MP on Radio 5 yesterday who was presenting it, this legislation will go hand in hand with age verification services , and since there is a belief (which I don’t share btw) that there is no real foolproof worldwide AVS, then a blanket ban would be imposed , affecting both under and over 18s

The interview is on yesterday’s (thursdays)radio 5 live breakfast on i player if you want to listen

That's Balderdash.
You cant blanket ban something you cant enforce. You would get your arse eaten in several lawsuits.

It's on par with saying you can't tell most 15-year-olds apart from 16-year-olds visually so no one gets drivers licenses.
The fact that AVS is terrible just makes it even more unenforceable. The only thing anyone has to do is prove that they are an adult and the ban vanishes. You cant prohibit legal services without reason from those who are allowed to legally access those services.

Your belief is entirely correct and lawmakers need to get their heads out of their rumps and stop trying to enforce unenforceable laws.

Reistr_the_Unbroken · September 2019

Narvuntien wrote: »

Both Jim Stirling and Yong Yea Videos point out that it isn't just about children, so its not "Bad Parenting" there are problem gamblers, there is the mentality impaired adults, people on the spectrum, and just straight depression that can all lead to compulsive spending

Plus parents just have no idea that they have to supervise their children when playing a soccer/football game, I mean a parent might supervise a young teenager for a few hours see no problem with allowing them to play then have them discover the loot boxes later on since it isn't a direct part of the game. It is unfair for parents to keep up with the industry monetization.

edit: yep I know the UK parliament is a bit preoccupied so it will be a while before actual laws are put down but we might have some games developed knowing that they cannot use lootboxes and therefore don't use them which is good for gamers. atm we have the medium-sized (AA) studios that are making money and good games without needing these monetization models

I mean where I’m from, gamblers can actually write that they want to ban themselves from casinos, from up to a month, year, or forever.

Narvuntien · September 2019

Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »

Narvuntien wrote: »

Both Jim Stirling and Yong Yea Videos point out that it isn't just about children, so its not "Bad Parenting" there are problem gamblers, there is the mentality impaired adults, people on the spectrum, and just straight depression that can all lead to compulsive spending

Plus parents just have no idea that they have to supervise their children when playing a soccer/football game, I mean a parent might supervise a young teenager for a few hours see no problem with allowing them to play then have them discover the loot boxes later on since it isn't a direct part of the game. It is unfair for parents to keep up with the industry monetization.

edit: yep I know the UK parliament is a bit preoccupied so it will be a while before actual laws are put down but we might have some games developed knowing that they cannot use lootboxes and therefore don't use them which is good for gamers. atm we have the medium-sized (AA) studios that are making money and good games without needing these monetization models

I mean where I’m from, gamblers can actually write that they want to ban themselves from casinos, from up to a month, year, or forever.

Well that is what the report talks about, that actual gambling industry has much much better controls for this kind of thing than the video gaming industry.

MJallday · September 2019

nafensoriel wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

They are but if you read the article and indeed listened to the MP on Radio 5 yesterday who was presenting it, this legislation will go hand in hand with age verification services , and since there is a belief (which I don’t share btw) that there is no real foolproof worldwide AVS, then a blanket ban would be imposed , affecting both under and over 18s

The interview is on yesterday’s (thursdays)radio 5 live breakfast on i player if you want to listen

That's Balderdash.
You cant blanket ban something you cant enforce. You would get your arse eaten in several lawsuits.

It's on par with saying you can't tell most 15-year-olds apart from 16-year-olds visually so no one gets drivers licenses.
The fact that AVS is terrible just makes it even more unenforceable. The only thing anyone has to do is prove that they are an adult and the ban vanishes. You cant prohibit legal services without reason from those who are allowed to legally access those services.

Your belief is entirely correct and lawmakers need to get their heads out of their rumps and stop trying to enforce unenforceable laws.

Of course you can. That’s a bit like says “you can’t have a 70mph speed limit because not every car is limited”

A blanket ban on loot boxes is coming, maybe not imminently, bits it’s coming
. Software manufacturers will find a way round it , they always do

Danikat · September 2019

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

Is it gonna be a huge mess if someone lies about their age to play the game (or parents buy the game and let them log in), buys a bunch of loot boxes, then cries foul (or their parents do) to get a refund because they are underage?

I mean really do you seriously think everyone is 18+ in ESO?

Under currently UK law for both gambling and purchasing 18+ (and 16+) games the responsibility lies with the person who provided it to the child. So if their parents buy the game for them they can't blame anyone else and it's the same if their child steals their card or card details to buy it online. (Technically that's theft...or fraud, and the child is at fault, but since they're a child and the parent is responsible for them it's their fault.)

But if a child is able to buy an 18+ game or participate in gambling directly then the responsibility lies with the retailer and they can be fined or lose their licence to operate (if it's not a first offence). If the kid lied about their age then it's still the retailers fault - they should have asked for ID or other proof of age first.

Glurin wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

@Danikat is correct, to an extent. The major focus on this is the games aimed at children with heavy gambling mechanic focuses. Also, sports titles, which often carry... I think it's PEGI 3+ ratings. So, suitable for children, even as the game has a predatory gambling system baked into the core reward loop. In that sense, this is less directed at ESO, though it will probably get caught in that. Though it depends on what exact shape the ultimate legislation takes.

The whole "only targets games aimed at children" thing is likely to have the same problem as "assault weapon" though. That being they are going to lump everything under the sun into that category. Basically if it isn't one of "those" games that comes out of Japan once in a while, then it obviously is something sold to children. (They'll get those other games from a slightly different "think of the children" angle.)

"But...but...ESRB! PEGI!!!"

Yeah, that's not gonna matter to them. They start with the premise that games are kids stuff, regardless of rating. The rating system might hold them off for a while, as it for the most part has done in the U.S., but eventually they will ram something through. England is already investing in thoughtcrime prosecution, so I'd think twice about pinning everything on a little number printed on the box.

Two important points here:

1) Age ratings on games are already legally enforced in the UK, so the concept that not all games are for kids is well established (except in the minds of many parents, who will buy 18+ games for their kids, but that's their decision to make). If retailers are caught selling games to someone under age they're fined, if they do it too often they can be prosecuted or lose their licence to operate.

2) Gambling is legal in the UK, every high street has a bookies where you can bet on sports and all kinds of other things, many towns have a casino or at least a shop with a bunch of slot machines and then there's things like the National Lottery, online casinos etc. and therefore the legislation to regulate it is already in place.

So this isn't a matter of trying to bring in a totally new law and figure out what it applies to and how it will work in practice. It can be done with existing procedures. It's just a matter of working out if it's necessary to do that, and if so what legislation will cover it. (e.g. do they need a gambling licence or is an 18+ rating enough.)

idk wrote: »

Narvuntien wrote: »

The question is "Are loot boxes Gambling" and the answer in the UK is yes. Since the items clearly have value even if that value cannot be turned into a monetary payout which was the loophole gaming companies have been walking through.

For ESO its 18+ and the lootboxes do not affect gameplay so in the short term this doesn't affect ESO since the report wants PEGI/ESRB to give games with lootboxes 18+.

Do the items in lootboxes have value? that is where it gets suppppper tricky because that value is not fixed when it's just to look cool since beauty is in the eye of the beholder so the value of the items fluctuates.

Personally, I would like to see the odds on crates published, that is simple enough.
You can reduce the issue if every crate always produce the same gems worth of items in which case you are getting random rewards of the same "value" which is how trading card game work always 1 rare, 3 uncommons and 10 commons but they have different real world value.

While you are correct that Crown Crates do not affect game play which is what UK seems to be focused on, ESO ESRB rating is Mature which is age 17+.

But ESRB ratings don't exist in the UK. We use the PEGI system, which rates ESO as 18+ (currently only because of the ability to murder innocent NPCs, it used to be 16+ before the Justice system was added). On a related note 18+ ratings don't have the same stigma over here as they do in the USA, no where which normally sells games would refuse to stock them because of the age rating.

Tigerseye wrote: »

Danikat wrote: »

...in which case they'll most likely block UK players from purchasing crown crates like many companies did when Belgium outlawed loot boxes.

If they do that, they will be losing income, unless they make the items, that were only available in crates, available to directly purchase.

It would actually be interesting to see if their profits in that area went up, or down, if they did that.

My guess is up, as there is a limit to how much most people want to gamble to get the exact item they want.

Even though the chances of getting what you want (or the gems to buy it) go up exponentially, once you have bought sufficient (as in, way too many!) crates.

The first half of the sentence, which you cut out, is fairly important here: "The only way it's likely to have an impact is if ZOS are required to buy a gambling licence and decide that's not worth doing, in which case they'll most likely block UK players from purchasing crown crates like many companies did when Belgium outlawed loot boxes."

Yes they would lose income if they did that, but if the income they lose is less than (or only slightly more than) the cost of getting a licence (not just the fee they have to pay to get one but the staff time required to apply and make sure they're complying with the regulations) they might decide it's the better option.

nafensoriel · September 2019

MJallday wrote: »

nafensoriel wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

They are but if you read the article and indeed listened to the MP on Radio 5 yesterday who was presenting it, this legislation will go hand in hand with age verification services , and since there is a belief (which I don’t share btw) that there is no real foolproof worldwide AVS, then a blanket ban would be imposed , affecting both under and over 18s

The interview is on yesterday’s (thursdays)radio 5 live breakfast on i player if you want to listen

That's Balderdash.
You cant blanket ban something you cant enforce. You would get your arse eaten in several lawsuits.

It's on par with saying you can't tell most 15-year-olds apart from 16-year-olds visually so no one gets drivers licenses.
The fact that AVS is terrible just makes it even more unenforceable. The only thing anyone has to do is prove that they are an adult and the ban vanishes. You cant prohibit legal services without reason from those who are allowed to legally access those services.

Your belief is entirely correct and lawmakers need to get their heads out of their rumps and stop trying to enforce unenforceable laws.

Of course you can. That’s a bit like says “you can’t have a 70mph speed limit because not every car is limited”

A blanket ban on loot boxes is coming, maybe not imminently, bits it’s coming
. Software manufacturers will find a way round it , they always do

Incorrect. If a car cannot meet minimum speed limits for the roads it operates on it is not legally allowed to operate on those roads without exemption/permit. For online access, the only legal metric is AVS enforcement currently. So in comparison to your analogy, it's more getting asked before you go on the highway "Can your car travel 70mph?" and being trusted to do so unless someone can conclusively prove you cannot.

I repeat you cannot legally ban something legal just because part of its user base might be illegal. It is entirely unenforceable.
Even should a ban be applied the instant it went into effect it would be challenged by the courts and soundly defeated. It would also not be enforced by legal departments because it would be a waste of time. There is no way to state that a user isn't of age if they state, using AVS, that they are of age. There is no legal framework to link age and online access. There is no legal requirement to link age and user name. With the tools that exist there is NO POSSIBLE WAY TO ENFORCE AGE BEYOND AVS SYSTEMS. Due to this, the law in question becomes a paper tiger with no teeth that have no bearing on reality and was made by people who have no bloody clue how law works. It's a political statement, not a law.

idk · September 2019

MJallday wrote: »

Hamish999 wrote: »

I'll just leave this here ...

Edit for clarification: The MPs are asking for the restriction of the sale of loot boxes to minors only.

They are but if you read the article and indeed listened to the MP on Radio 5 yesterday who was presenting it, this legislation will go hand in hand with age verification services , and since there is a belief (which I don’t share btw) that there is no real foolproof worldwide AVS, then a blanket ban would be imposed , affecting both under and over 18s

The interview is on yesterday’s (thursdays)radio 5 live breakfast on i player if you want to listen

I think you are grasping at straws here. There are already systems in place in some countries (cannot speak for all) dealing with age verification.

Beyond that, if nations legislated bans on things they could not come up with foolproof legislation then the internet itself would be banned as there is a lot of actual and real criminal actity that major governments have been incapable of finding a "foolproof" solution even locally.

It also does not matter if one MP specifically mentioned this. Politicians say a lot of empty words and are probalby the least trustworthy of the lot of humans.

idk · September 2019

@Danikat I did not say PEGI was 17+ so not sure why you seem to be correcting me on it, but thank you.

In the comment I quoted and was replying to the person incorrectly stated that both PEGI and ESRB rated ESO as 18+

Tandor · September 2019

For those interested in PEGI ratings in the UK, and to avoid any confusion over what they refer to:-

https://pegi.info/page/pegi-age-ratings

The current PEGI rating for ESO as published on the game's UK website is 18.

zaria · September 2019

Hamish999 wrote: »

I'll just leave this here ...

Edit for clarification: The MPs are asking for the restriction of the sale of loot boxes to minors only.

18 is very high, yes I would expect it for Fallout but ESO is pretty tame in gore, I would rate it like Skyrim.
You have pvp and *** talk but so has fortnight.
Yes the loot box thing could well change this but not an issue at this time.

Phex · September 2019

The problem with these legal actions is that they are made by people who don't understand games (not as an entertainment and not as an industry. It's the equivalent of whatever minister is responsible for farming saying that we should plant more cows.
The resulting laws are either ineffectual that companies can sidestep them easily or so overbearning that they hurt the entire industry rather than the part of it that actually did the think you were legislating against.

zaria · September 2019

starkerealm wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Danikat wrote: »

Since it's aimed at protecting children it's unlikely to affect ESO as the game is rated 18+ in the UK.

The only way it's likely to have an impact is if ZOS are required to buy a gambling licence and decide that's not worth doing, in which case they'll most likely block UK players from purchasing crown crates like many companies did when Belgium outlawed loot boxes.

Personally I think it's a step in the right direction (if it actually goes through - bear in mind the UK parliament isn't in session right now so MPs can't pass any laws and seemingly couldn't organise a *** up in a brewery when they were in session) but it's unlikely to directly affect ESO.

from my understanding, the law is aimed at the principle of loot boxes, so the age of 18+ doesnt matter. - it will be a blanket ban.
however as you say, getting it through parliment at the moment would be like trying to shove an octopus through a venitian blind.

Given this is a, "think of the children," example, getting it through Parliament will be a lot easier than you might expect. This is compounded by the fact that a number of MPs are pissed about several publisher reps outright lying to them in testimony. There's a lot of moving parts, but, the odds of this getting through UK Parliament are pretty decent.

@Danikat is correct, to an extent. The major focus on this is the games aimed at children with heavy gambling mechanic focuses. Also, sports titles, which often carry... I think it's PEGI 3+ ratings. So, suitable for children, even as the game has a predatory gambling system baked into the core reward loop. In that sense, this is less directed at ESO, though it will probably get caught in that. Though it depends on what exact shape the ultimate legislation takes.

Agree, ESO has multiple loopholes out here.
Fortnight's system would probably work well in ESO. In short its an 24 or 12 hour crown crate item you can buy, you can wait or buy the item and it cycles to the next.

Rikumaru · September 2019

Good, I hope lootboxes get eviscerated from the gaming industry.

starkerealm · September 2019

MJallday wrote: »

nafensoriel wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

They are but if you read the article and indeed listened to the MP on Radio 5 yesterday who was presenting it, this legislation will go hand in hand with age verification services , and since there is a belief (which I don’t share btw) that there is no real foolproof worldwide AVS, then a blanket ban would be imposed , affecting both under and over 18s

The interview is on yesterday’s (thursdays)radio 5 live breakfast on i player if you want to listen

That's Balderdash.
You cant blanket ban something you cant enforce. You would get your arse eaten in several lawsuits.

It's on par with saying you can't tell most 15-year-olds apart from 16-year-olds visually so no one gets drivers licenses.
The fact that AVS is terrible just makes it even more unenforceable. The only thing anyone has to do is prove that they are an adult and the ban vanishes. You cant prohibit legal services without reason from those who are allowed to legally access those services.

Your belief is entirely correct and lawmakers need to get their heads out of their rumps and stop trying to enforce unenforceable laws.

Of course you can. That’s a bit like says “you can’t have a 70mph speed limit because not every car is limited”

A blanket ban on loot boxes is coming, maybe not imminently, bits it’s coming
. Software manufacturers will find a way round it , they always do

Further, and this is kinda important to understand, bans like this are absolutely enforceable. If you're selling products in a country, you're bound by the laws in that country. As a business, you can't argue, "I'm hiding behind seven proxies." You're doing business in their territorial boarders, you can run afoul of their laws. The consequences for blowing off a nation's laws can be quite dire.

zaria · September 2019

starkerealm wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

nafensoriel wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

They are but if you read the article and indeed listened to the MP on Radio 5 yesterday who was presenting it, this legislation will go hand in hand with age verification services , and since there is a belief (which I don’t share btw) that there is no real foolproof worldwide AVS, then a blanket ban would be imposed , affecting both under and over 18s

The interview is on yesterday’s (thursdays)radio 5 live breakfast on i player if you want to listen

That's Balderdash.
You cant blanket ban something you cant enforce. You would get your arse eaten in several lawsuits.

It's on par with saying you can't tell most 15-year-olds apart from 16-year-olds visually so no one gets drivers licenses.
The fact that AVS is terrible just makes it even more unenforceable. The only thing anyone has to do is prove that they are an adult and the ban vanishes. You cant prohibit legal services without reason from those who are allowed to legally access those services.

Your belief is entirely correct and lawmakers need to get their heads out of their rumps and stop trying to enforce unenforceable laws.

Of course you can. That’s a bit like says “you can’t have a 70mph speed limit because not every car is limited”

A blanket ban on loot boxes is coming, maybe not imminently, bits it’s coming
. Software manufacturers will find a way round it , they always do

Further, and this is kinda important to understand, bans like this are absolutely enforceable. If you're selling products in a country, you're bound by the laws in that country. As a business, you can't argue, "I'm hiding behind seven proxies." You're doing business in their territorial boarders, you can run afoul of their laws. The consequences for blowing off a nation's laws can be quite dire.

This, you might dodge it if you are an website with unknown owners like pirate bay.
Not if you are an major cooperation who does business in a country.

Rikumaru wrote: »

Good, I hope lootboxes get eviscerated from the gaming industry.

This and also an kind of rating system above warning about micro transactions. Is this an demo then you end level 2 or do you have to pay to buy the full game or do you have to pay to continue playing today if you fail?

nafensoriel · September 2019

starkerealm wrote: »

Further, and this is kinda important to understand, bans like this are absolutely enforceable. If you're selling products in a country, you're bound by the laws in that country. As a business, you can't argue, "I'm hiding behind seven proxies." You're doing business in their territorial boarders, you can run afoul of their laws. The consequences for blowing off a nation's laws can be quite dire.

Nope.
Not how it works.

People assume laws are these mighty monolithic things that once established automatically create whatever situation they proclaim. This is not a reality. There are a few things that have to happen first.

1] First off the law has to be enforceable. If your enforcement agencies don't enforce it doesn't matter that it exists. No enforcement agency will enforce a blanket ban because of point 2.

2] Laws are not automatically accepted as fact. Laws are very motile things. Every single time you prosecute that law it will change slightly in how, when, and why it is enforced. Sometimes stronger sometimes much weaker. If a law such as this was used to enforce a blanket ban of legal services to legal adults and those adults took the case to court it would get utterly wrecked for reasons already stated. A law is only as valid as to its first legal challenge. Remember that.

3] Often a law is worded pisspoorly and is technically not valid by its own wording. You would be shocked at how many times a "rule" has been passed that turned out to need amendments before it was enforceable.

Also, I don't mean to be rude but if you really think laws are that monolithic you really really need to pick up a history book. Even the last 10 years will show you that this is so laughably not the case.

starkerealm · September 2019

nafensoriel wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Further, and this is kinda important to understand, bans like this are absolutely enforceable. If you're selling products in a country, you're bound by the laws in that country. As a business, you can't argue, "I'm hiding behind seven proxies." You're doing business in their territorial boarders, you can run afoul of their laws. The consequences for blowing off a nation's laws can be quite dire.

Nope.
Not how it works.

I'm going to stop you there. Last I checked, the UK does not have judicial review. So, most of what you're saying might carry some weight in an American court, but simply isn't how UK courts function, and you're assuming that the British judiciary has powers it lacks because that's how it works on Law & Order.

MehrunesFlagon · September 2019

MJallday wrote: »

Hamish999 wrote: »

I'll just leave this here ...

Edit for clarification: The MPs are asking for the restriction of the sale of loot boxes to minors only.

They are but if you read the article and indeed listened to the MP on Radio 5 yesterday who was presenting it, this legislation will go hand in hand with age verification services , and since there is a belief (which I don’t share btw) that there is no real foolproof worldwide AVS, then a blanket ban would be imposed , affecting both under and over 18s

The interview is on yesterday’s (thursdays)radio 5 live breakfast on i player if you want to listen

Basically what's going to be the case with flavored e-cigs in the U.S.. Adults might not be able to buy them anymore because they think it causes teenagers to start vaping.

starkerealm · September 2019

MehrunesFlagon wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Hamish999 wrote: »

I'll just leave this here ...

Edit for clarification: The MPs are asking for the restriction of the sale of loot boxes to minors only.

They are but if you read the article and indeed listened to the MP on Radio 5 yesterday who was presenting it, this legislation will go hand in hand with age verification services , and since there is a belief (which I don’t share btw) that there is no real foolproof worldwide AVS, then a blanket ban would be imposed , affecting both under and over 18s

The interview is on yesterday’s (thursdays)radio 5 live breakfast on i player if you want to listen

Basically what's going to be the case with flavored e-cigs in the U.S.. Adults might not be able to buy them anymore because they think it causes teenagers to start vaping.

And, much like with e-cigs, they're correct. These were being marketed at minors while paying lip service to the idea that, "no, really, this is for adults."

MehrunesFlagon · September 2019

starkerealm wrote: »

MehrunesFlagon wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Hamish999 wrote: »

I'll just leave this here ...

Edit for clarification: The MPs are asking for the restriction of the sale of loot boxes to minors only.

They are but if you read the article and indeed listened to the MP on Radio 5 yesterday who was presenting it, this legislation will go hand in hand with age verification services , and since there is a belief (which I don’t share btw) that there is no real foolproof worldwide AVS, then a blanket ban would be imposed , affecting both under and over 18s

The interview is on yesterday’s (thursdays)radio 5 live breakfast on i player if you want to listen

Basically what's going to be the case with flavored e-cigs in the U.S.. Adults might not be able to buy them anymore because they think it causes teenagers to start vaping.

And, much like with e-cigs, they're correct. These were being marketed at minors while paying lip service to the idea that, "no, really, this is for adults."

With that it does slightly differ.You have to ask if those same teenagers would be smoking if there was no vaping?

nafensoriel · September 2019

starkerealm wrote: »

nafensoriel wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Further, and this is kinda important to understand, bans like this are absolutely enforceable. If you're selling products in a country, you're bound by the laws in that country. As a business, you can't argue, "I'm hiding behind seven proxies." You're doing business in their territorial boarders, you can run afoul of their laws. The consequences for blowing off a nation's laws can be quite dire.

Nope.
Not how it works.

I'm going to stop you there. Last I checked, the UK does not have judicial review. So, most of what you're saying might carry some weight in an American court, but simply isn't how UK courts function, and you're assuming that the British judiciary has powers it lacks because that's how it works on Law & Order.

Again not accurate. You do not have individual power to challenge an act of parliament but you most certainly get the right to challenge an act of parliament in high court. A law can be thrown out for being unlawful. The same process just, if I am to be honest, more simplified and far faster.

Please don't quote TV shows. All I have to say to them is "The Well".

starkerealm · September 2019

nafensoriel wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

nafensoriel wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Further, and this is kinda important to understand, bans like this are absolutely enforceable. If you're selling products in a country, you're bound by the laws in that country. As a business, you can't argue, "I'm hiding behind seven proxies." You're doing business in their territorial boarders, you can run afoul of their laws. The consequences for blowing off a nation's laws can be quite dire.

Nope.
Not how it works.

I'm going to stop you there. Last I checked, the UK does not have judicial review. So, most of what you're saying might carry some weight in an American court, but simply isn't how UK courts function, and you're assuming that the British judiciary has powers it lacks because that's how it works on Law & Order.

Again not accurate. You do not have individual power to challenge an act of parliament but you most certainly get the right to challenge an act of parliament in high court. A law can be thrown out for being unlawful. The same process just, if I am to be honest, more simplified and far faster.

Please don't quote TV shows. All I have to say to them is "The Well".

That's not what I said. I also didn't quote TV shows, merely pointed out that you seemed to derive your legal education from them. A perception that you've further validated.

Glurin · September 2019

starkerealm wrote: »

In case this part got away from you, EA sent a rep to parliament to lie for the publisher. People are not happy with them right now.

Oh I am well aware of that. And frankly speaking, people have not been happy with EA for a good long time now. Not after they learn just how scummy that publisher really is at any rate. But no matter how scummy they are, that does not by itself justify further interference across the industry from any government body.

I would get deeper into this, but my computer died not long ago and until I get a new one I'm stuck posting from a mobile device, which makes lengthy posts kind of a pain. (Also means I'm missing out on the IC event and thus probably won't be able to get the onyx indrik, which is the only one I had any real interest in. :'( )

idk · September 2019

starkerealm wrote: »

nafensoriel wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Further, and this is kinda important to understand, bans like this are absolutely enforceable. If you're selling products in a country, you're bound by the laws in that country. As a business, you can't argue, "I'm hiding behind seven proxies." You're doing business in their territorial boarders, you can run afoul of their laws. The consequences for blowing off a nation's laws can be quite dire.

Nope.
Not how it works.

I'm going to stop you there. Last I checked, the UK does not have judicial review. So, most of what you're saying might carry some weight in an American court, but simply isn't how UK courts function, and you're assuming that the British judiciary has powers it lacks because that's how it works on Law & Order.

You are correct that UK Parliament is sovereign and as such the only body that can overturn a law passed by parliament is another parliament. However, it is very premature to think the UK will do an absolute ban on loot crates of all kinds for all ages.

Narvuntien · September 2019

Phex wrote: »

The problem with these legal actions is that they are made by people who don't understand games (not as an entertainment and not as an industry. It's the equivalent of whatever minister is responsible for farming saying that we should plant more cows.

The resulting laws are either ineffectual that companies can sidestep them easily or so overbearning that they hurt the entire industry rather than the part of it that actually did the think you were legislating against.

So the report acknowledges this so they went to the gaming companies about this and they basically just refused to help them, ducking and diving questions which made the report writers suspicious and sckeptical for the possibility of self-regulation.

If the companies came to the commission with transparency and help then perhaps there would of been a less damning report.

Cously · September 2019

The government is useless and incompetent 100% of the time everywhere in the planet. They should most definately not interfer in the free market. The problem of loot boxes is that reeks of greed, a trait most of us learned to despise. Surely ZOS could earn tons of profits by fostering a good long term business model? Since I'm not part of the pathetic group of the species that needs a nanny to tell them what's right and what's wrong, I simply withdraw my money from ZOS' grasp. Very easily fixed if all humans learned to use their wallet power.