Star Wars Battlefront 2 - now with lootbox drama

[Lahey]

 

[Cael]

I'm pretty sure to be defined as gambling it must possess some sort of addictive quality but this is quite far from my field so I'll just shitpost:

So is Kinder Surprise to an extent (gambling)

So is this, because you don't know exactly what kind of shitty love phrase you'll find inside!

Shitty love phrases isn't an asset and therefore does not count in terms of gambling.

 

[Matalarata]

isn't an asset

But it really is, like your kinder example! Since when concluding a deal, the parts are the ones deciding the intrinsic value of such "assets". Suppose I'm a collector, for example. People do collect kinder surprises, I haven't got the slightest idea about such market but probably some pieces also have a monetary value, nowadays.

I'm really just messing with you, I know how ridiculous that sounds and I'm no law expert but I'm pretty sure there are other reasons for why one is classified as gambling and the other one isn't, concepts like shared value (winning something that's considered valuable by a large majority vs shitty love phrases) and the addictive nature of gambling are taken in consideration in some legislatures, each nation in Europe uses slighlty different regulations.
Again, I'm not an expert, just pulling things out of my ass here...

 

[Cael]

isn't an asset

But it really is, like your kinder example! Since when concluding a deal, the parts are the ones deciding the intrinsic value of such "assets". Suppose I'm a collector, for example. People do collect kinder surprises, I haven't got the slightest idea about such market but probably some pieces also have a monetary value, nowadays.

I'm really just messing with you, I know how ridiculous that sounds and I'm no law expert but I'm pretty sure there are other reasons for why one is classified as gambling and the other one isn't, concepts like shared value (winning something that's considered valuable by a large majority vs shitty love phrases) and the addictive nature of gambling are taken in consideration in some legislatures, each nation in Europe uses slighlty different regulations.
Again, I'm not an expert, just pulling things out of my ass here...

Wrong. There is a definition of asset in the law, and advice on a piece of paper does not constitute that.

The problem here is that people like to throw their own interpretation of stuff on it without the slightest training in law. As someone who has a bit to do with Commercial Law (amongst other types of law), there is a logic in the definition of laws. While there are loopholes, this has more to do with oversight than anything else. For example, there is actually no law against, say, the PM of New Zealand declaring that all blue-eyed, blondes are to be shot at dawn. However, the likelihood of people actually following that order is miniscule ALTHOUGH it makes them all criminals in the eyes of the law for not doing what the PM LAWFULLY ordered.

Pulling things out of asses seems to be what a lot of people love to do, especially those who wants pure anarchy with no rule of law at all. Freedom at the cost of society falling apart. Rule of the strongest or at the end of a gun barrel. Another group of idiots love to change laws or create new ones and then persecute people for historical acts based on the new laws. A typical example is the Essendon "doping" saga in Australia where the team was given what was LATER a banned substance to enhance performance. The team, the coach and the doctor were persecuted by the sports doping authorities (both Australia and world) for it, even though it was legal AT THE TIME.

The law is not something that a bunch of fucktards with agendas should be allowed anywhere near. It is dangerous as heck to allow them to impose their stupidity on the rest of us. Remembering that the law allows them to throw us behind bars for violating them. The PCtards are very fond of such nonsense, legislating everything from discrimination to human rights to anything they can lay their hands on. CONVERSELY, those freedom fanatics who would love to see that there be NO laws that impede their "freedom" to do what they want should also not be allowed anywhere near the law. Society is built on laws. Law is the contract whereby you obey and be given privileges of being part of that society. That is why we PUNISH criminals (i.e., take away their privileges as members of the society), the violaters of the law, the breakers of the contract. Without laws, there is nothing but barbarism. While the thugs may love such a thing because it allows them to take what they want with impunity, it is no way for any society to advance.

The question of lootboxes is more than just one factor. That is what the morons in thie thread love to reduce it to: define gambling, define asset, children, freedom, my rights. Every argument is reduced to one factor in order to pull a gotcha moment. It is actually a GROUP of factors. It is gambling, but it is NOT outlawing gambling. It is children, but it is NOT wholly children. It is assets, but it is more than that (you are gambling for pixels, after all). It is about freedoms but it is also about limits. It is about the rights of people to do what they want, but it is also about the limit to what they are allowed to do.

Not a single naysayer to the whole thing has ever looked at all the factors and in fact, when presented with an argument that tries to present all, they just go for the "I refuse to be a victim" narrative and argue towards absurdism. I spit on them as much as I spit on SJWs because to me, they are both the same kind of lying shitholes more concerned with themselves than society, science or truth.

 

[Cael]

I am putting this in a separate post so that it is easier to read:

What we call lootboxes are basically gambling. It is no different putting money in a slot machine. That you always get something is besides the point. Just as the lights and sounds of a slot machine gives you a dopamine high when "win" something, so do game developers put in congratulatory things when you buy and open lootboxes, coupled with the high as you beat others using the things you successfully gambled for and they didn't. It is addictive, and the effects of gambling on society has been proven time and again in any number of studies. The closest analog to gambling is actually addictive drugs.

That is why there are laws limiting gambling. Many places outlaw them except in very specific places (e.g., Malaysia only officially allow gambling in a remote resort in the mountains hours away from major cities). Others place strict limits on who has access to gambling. Even Las Vegas has limits on who can enter a casino, even though it is famous for its many casinos (pratically casino capital of the world). People accept those laws. They accept the restrictions because they see the sense in it, and the dangers associated with gambling.

Enter the Internet. Suddenly, we can gamble with no restrictions at all. All the laws that restrict gambling is thrown out the window. Even worse, younger people are especially vulnerable to this form of gambling because of a combination naivety, access and less emotional and intellectual control. They are more easily goaded by others into buying stuff and be swayed by all sorts of pay for advantage transactions. The entire model of pay2win is based on this. More insidiously, game publishers insert their on staff into their games in order to troll and goad real players into buying stuff. Couple that with the gambling factor and the lower emotional maturity of young people. How the youngsters get their money is completely irrelevant to the subject. I know of people whose 14-year old girl is prostituting herself for drug money. I know of parents who had their credit cards stolen by their kid to buy stuff online. Where there is a will, there is a way.

There should have been a concerted effort to return the gambling laws to take into account the new media AGES ago, instead of allowing Flash MMO gambling to proliferate, but that is done and gone and past. What is happening now is that the politicians are finally waking up (more like getting cold water and anvils dropped on them) to how they have failed the law where gambling is concerned. They have allowed vested interests to basically loophole their way into being allowed to deal drugs by calling the drugs "fun powder" instead. It is not going to be an easy fix. The quagmire doesn't end at just laws. There are all sorts of questions about jurisdiction and international policing involved, the Internet being the creature it is. You can almost bet on the Chinese to flip everyone the bird and continue on their own merry way using servers in China where they would be untouchable. But does that mean we do nothing about it? Of course not. We don't allow drugs to proliferate just because Afghanistan and South America makes a motzah out of the trade. Go view the video by the CEO of R2 Games (I linked to it in this thread). It is an eye opener for people who doesn't know what all the fuss is about.

The problem is beyond EA. EA merely shone a light on the subject. It is a problem that needs to be terminated and terminated fast.

 

[Teepo]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insert...ront-2-and-no-good-way-to-re-monetize-it/amp/

 

[Cael]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insert...ront-2-and-no-good-way-to-re-monetize-it/amp/

It cannot be lootboxes. I think the multiple ongoing investigations would make it fairly difficult for them to do so and still reach the worldwide audience they are looking at. Unlike Chinese companies, EA and Disney are based in the US and are very vulnerable to consumer laws there.

They MAY, however, start charging for other things. Say a single-use power-up would cost $x. That won't be lootboxing, but it would be p2w.

 

[Spectacle]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insert...ront-2-and-no-good-way-to-re-monetize-it/amp/

It cannot be lootboxes. I think the multiple ongoing investigations would make it fairly difficult for them to do so and still reach the worldwide audience they are looking at. Unlike Chinese companies, EA and Disney are based in the US and are very vulnerable to consumer laws there.

They MAY, however, start charging for other things. Say a single-use power-up would cost $x. That won't be lootboxing, but it would be p2w.

They could do that, if they want to kill whatever reputation they have left. "Lootboxes is gambling for children" is really just a side show in this story, it is the specter of pay2win that made Battlefront 2 a commercial failure.

 

[Cael]

They could do that, if they want to kill whatever reputation they have left. "Lootboxes is gambling for children" is really just a side show in this story, it is the specter of pay2win that made Battlefront 2 a commercial failure.

Given that it is EA, I am surprised that people hasn't realised that whatever reputation EA has left is merely an accident of them either not having thought of a way to ruin that yet, not realise they have that part yet to ruin or that enough people are stupid enough not to see the ruination they have brought to everything they have set their greedy thug eyes on. EA has never cared for its reputation and I don't see it starting now. Even when this lootbox thing blew up, they shamelessly ignored everything and sent out their stormtroopers to try and shout people down. It took a call from Disney to stop them in their tracks. A bigger fish indeed.

If it were up to EA alone, p2w would be standard.

 

[Spectacle]

Given how butthurt they got over being awarded "worst company in america" several years in a row, I think you underestimate how important reputation is to EA.

 

[Cael]

Given how butthurt they got over being awarded "worst company in america" several years in a row, I think you underestimate how important reputation is to EA.

One must keep up appearances, you know...

 

[Black]

Given how butthurt they got over being awarded "worst company in america" several years in a row, I think you underestimate how important reputation is to EA.

Eh, if it was that important to them they'd do something to change it. Words are cheap.

 

[DosBuster]

Given how butthurt they got over being awarded "worst company in america" several years in a row, I think you underestimate how important reputation is to EA.

Eh, if it was that important to them they'd do something to change it. Words are cheap.

https://www.cnet.com/g00/news/how-e...Referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS5hdS8=

 

[Cael]

Given how butthurt they got over being awarded "worst company in america" several years in a row, I think you underestimate how important reputation is to EA.

Eh, if it was that important to them they'd do something to change it. Words are cheap.

https://www.cnet.com/g00/news/how-electronic-arts-stopped-being-the-worst-company-in-america/?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS5hdS8=

They slid back to their old arrogant habits. Nothing new there. Happens all the time. I'd say they are staring at another worst company in America title.

 

[Santander02]

About that...

On October 30, 2017, Consumer Reports shut down Consumerist(sant: the guys who host the worst company in America awards), stating that coverage of consumer issues would now be found on the main Consumer Reports website.[3

 

[Cael]

That would explain why EA went full retard, then. The timing is exquisite.

 

[DragoFireheart]

That would explain why EA went full retard, then. The timing is exquisite.

Jokes on you, EA is always in full retard mode.

 

[Lahey]

 

[Cosmic Bane]

Wrong. There is a definition of asset in the law, and advice on a piece of paper does not constitute that.

The problem here is that people like to throw their own interpretation of stuff on it without the slightest training in law. As someone who has a bit to do with Commercial Law (amongst other types of law), there is a logic in the definition of laws. While there are loopholes, this has more to do with oversight than anything else. For example, there is actually no law against, say, the PM of New Zealand declaring that all blue-eyed, blondes are to be shot at dawn. However, the likelihood of people actually following that order is miniscule ALTHOUGH it makes them all criminals in the eyes of the law for not doing what the PM LAWFULLY ordered.

Pulling things out of asses seems to be what a lot of people love to do, especially those who wants pure anarchy with no rule of law at all. Freedom at the cost of society falling apart. Rule of the strongest or at the end of a gun barrel. Another group of idiots love to change laws or create new ones and then persecute people for historical acts based on the new laws. A typical example is the Essendon "doping" saga in Australia where the team was given what was LATER a banned substance to enhance performance. The team, the coach and the doctor were persecuted by the sports doping authorities (both Australia and world) for it, even though it was legal AT THE TIME.

The law is not something that a bunch of fucktards with agendas should be allowed anywhere near. It is dangerous as heck to allow them to impose their stupidity on the rest of us. Remembering that the law allows them to throw us behind bars for violating them. The PCtards are very fond of such nonsense, legislating everything from discrimination to human rights to anything they can lay their hands on. CONVERSELY, those freedom fanatics who would love to see that there be NO laws that impede their "freedom" to do what they want should also not be allowed anywhere near the law. Society is built on laws. Law is the contract whereby you obey and be given privileges of being part of that society. That is why we PUNISH criminals (i.e., take away their privileges as members of the society), the violaters of the law, the breakers of the contract. Without laws, there is nothing but barbarism. While the thugs may love such a thing because it allows them to take what they want with impunity, it is no way for any society to advance.

The question of lootboxes is more than just one factor. That is what the morons in thie thread love to reduce it to: define gambling, define asset, children, freedom, my rights. Every argument is reduced to one factor in order to pull a gotcha moment. It is actually a GROUP of factors. It is gambling, but it is NOT outlawing gambling. It is children, but it is NOT wholly children. It is assets, but it is more than that (you are gambling for pixels, after all). It is about freedoms but it is also about limits. It is about the rights of people to do what they want, but it is also about the limit to what they are allowed to do.

Not a single naysayer to the whole thing has ever looked at all the factors and in fact, when presented with an argument that tries to present all, they just go for the "I refuse to be a victim" narrative and argue towards absurdism. I spit on them as much as I spit on SJWs because to me, they are both the same kind of lying shitholes more concerned with themselves than society, science or truth.

You are upset because they are possibly using a wrong law to stop something that is bad. But you can also make a new law to stop it, too. That is how we got all our laws in the first place. You should not just make up more laws every time a blue haired whale or mopey soccer mom complains about something but when there is new tech then new problems arise which should be dealt with.

It is not really gambling but it is parasitic exploitation of chilruns and very negative to society aside from that aspect, so I won't shed any tears if all this pay to win shit online gaming shit gets banned finally. I doubt they will ban all of it but it would be nice. The whole business model of roping people in with a 'free' game is really disgusting and I would like to see the whole business model outlawed. Can't get someone to pay a subscription? Well, tough shit, guess there is no real demand for MMO 2233234232322 after all. Who would think.

Basically they are getting all the free users in just to have the small percentage of victims who pay for it all have someone to play with when they spend inordinant amounts of money trying to get the ultimate mega skinpack to impress everyone. Now that is a problem especially when it's a bunch of little kids getting hooked on this shit, and something worth doing something about.

 

[Cael]

A whole bunch of non sequiturs and butthurt nonsense.

There, FTFY.

If you are not even going to try to get what i am getting it, please stop wasting pixels.

 

[Cosmic Bane]

A whole bunch of non sequiturs and butthurt nonsense.

There, FTFY.

If you are not even going to try to get what i am getting it, please stop wasting pixels.

Oh so suddenly the inviolable law is nonsequitirs when it's inconvenient.

 

[Cael]

Oh so suddenly the inviolable law is nonsequitirs when it's inconvenient.

No. Your post is.

That you didn't know the difference is why speaking to you is a waste of time.

 

[Cosmic Bane]

Oh so suddenly the inviolable law is nonsequitirs when it's inconvenient.

No. Your post is.

That you didn't know the difference is why speaking to you is a waste of time.

You are so full of shit. You can change the law and that is my point. You are obviously not arguing in good faith because you won't admit this.

What shitty MMO are you community manager for? lol

 

[Cael]

You are so full of shit. You can change the law and that is my point. You are obviously not arguing in good faith because you won't admit this.

Are you retarded? Have you actually READ what I have been talking about in this topic? A law change is EXACTLY WHAT I WAS CALLING FOR, YOU MORON!

EDIT: My post following the post he quoted explicitly called for a change in the gambling laws. This guy is nothing but a liar trying to troll people.

 

[Daedalos]

Another day, another day to play BF2. Game is still fucking awesome, and I have 140 hours in now. :D

Just keeps being fun.

At soon we get LAST JEDI CONTENT, in 1.5 weeks. Get hyped u niggas

Gon play Captain Phasma