Inb4 “sense of accomplishment” I’m not taking about obviously predatory practices here, more of the basic stuff.
So from what I understand, people are against loot boxes, because they are like gambling for children. I argue that gambling isint inheritly bad, and therefore loot boxes aren’t either. The vast majority of people are able to go to a Casio and have a fun night. The vast majority of children can go to chuck E cheese and not become degenerates. Yes some people go overboard with it, but that’s the same with alhocol, weed, food, etc.
I think a teenager pulling a double shift and spending some money on a virtual slot machine to win a virtual knife skin or some shit is perfectly fine. Yes, some will go overboard, but I think most people are okay.
Change my view
Edit: down voting because you disagree with me is going to lead to the same echo chamber we had on reddit. I’m actually trying to have a discussion on this
What if Chuck E Cheese was in your bedroom and it was marketed to make you feel like you were missing out if you didn’t have the thing your friend’s had, but you can’t buy the thing, oh no that’s too easy. We’ll let you buy the chance to own the thing.
I’ll give you the proximity point, it is easier to access loot boxes when they are in a game.
But as for the missing out part, yeah that’s how it works. Your friend wins something from the claw machine or gets a bunch of tickets, now you want that. That’s part of the fun, your parents could just buy the toy but that’s lame
But your parents can’t just buy the toy. The only way to get the toy is through the element of chance - sometimes with a near zero win chance - by spending real world money.
The only reason it’s not de-facto gambling is that there are consolation prizes, but in most peoples’ view that doesn’t make it morally okay to push on children, nor does it make it completely not gambling either. It’s just gambling with consolation prizes.
I disagree that most people view it as bad. Arcades and stuff have been around forever, and are still being used by a ton of people. Just because you don’t want send your kids to chuck E cheese doesn’t mean most people agree with you
Your welcome to think that way. It’s definitional gambling, some people don’t like to enable kids to gamble.
Do those people ban thier kids from arcades? Playing claw machines and stuff? I’m genuinely asking
Ban from an arcade? No. But claw machines have a near zero chance of getting anything. They are definitely rigged. I used to toss a coin or two into one on the way out of the arcade, never got anything. I would let them experience the disappointment a few times, then suggest that maybe spending that money elsewhere will make them feel better.
Yes, that’s how most people react to those things. You knew, even then, that you were unlikely to win. But that’s the thrill, beating the odds. I
These ”gaming” companies are even worse than Casinos, because they’re unregulated and are studying the psychology of addiction to exploits peoples weaknesses to maximise their profits.
They use techniques such as an “early win” to hook people and override their common sense. (It’s illegal for Casinos to do this in most places.) Examples of other techniques are using artificial in-game currencies to dissociate it from real money; and soft-gating, where something is technically free but it has a delay, so you pay a little bit to skip the delay. It’s super predatory.
Also, exposing kids and teenagers to this is wiring their brain to crave gambling as an adult. It’s the same reason we don’t let 13 years olds smoke - by the time their brain has finished maturing, the desire for nicotine is hard-wired for life.
Oh yeah I’m totally down with them needing to be regulated.
As for the kids thing, I don’t put nicotine in the same camp as gambling. The addiction rate in smoking is way higher then gambling. Most 13 year Olds are able to play cool math games black jack without robbing a liquor store
What is better, offering that skin for a one-time price or putting it in a random box and selling a chance at getting the skin? Let’s say the regular price is $20. Now if the gambling gave a guarantee at around $25, it might be ethical because you could get the skin much earlier and “save” some money. But these companies aren’t doing that (at least not to my knowledge) because they are predatory and not ethical by nature. If they were, they would offer items for a one-time price AND the opportunity to gamble for it with a chance to get it much cheaper.
The issue is the potential age of the potential audience. Some people are too young to understand they are gambling money that has fixed value on a CHANCE to win big without understanding the ODDS of winning big, and the marketing team behind this are counting on that. It’s predatory behavior on people too inexperienced to know they are being scammed as the item they get has no real monetary value.
I have to say again, just because some people have a problem, doesn’t mean we all have to miss out. My uncle is an alcoholic, should I not be able to have some brews and watch the chiefs? Some people eat to much sugar, my kid can’t have a popsicle? Some people gamble to much, so it’s bad for my kiddo to play that coin dropping game?
It’s our job as parents to educate our kids on this stuff.
As a different take, I think it’s just an un-fun mechanic that infects an increasing number of what I’d otherwise consider “good” games.
Because the (broad-stroke) economics of it mean that only 1/100 people actually need to engage with loot boxes for the company to see a profit, they’re incentivized to shove that shit in all of our faces constantly even if most of us hate it.
So, “we all have to miss out” is a huge mischaracterization of how I’d react to loot boxes being banned.
