Anti-Loot Box Bill Could Radically Change How Video Games Are Sold (polygon.com) 228
Democratic and Republican senators can hardly agree on what to order for lunch, but as of Thursday they seem to agree that the video game industry requires additional government oversight. From a report: Proposed legislation could ban loot boxes and other kinds of microtransactions, and its co-sponsors include members from both major parties. The devil is in the details, of course, and the bill itself could have far reaching implications for the game industry. The full text of the proposed bill is available online. Its intention is to "regulate certain pay-to-win microtransactions and sales of loot boxes." In order to do so, it first has to define what those things are.
The bill says, "an add-on transaction to a interactive digital entertainment product that [...] eases a user's progression through content otherwise available within the game without the purchase of such transaction; assists a user in accomplishing an achievement within the game that can otherwise be accomplished without the purchase of such transaction; assists a user in receiving an award associated with the game that is otherwise available in association with the game without the purchase of such transaction; or permits a user to continue to access content of the game that had previously been accessible to the user but has been made inaccessible after the expiration of a timer or a number of gameplay attempts; or with respect to an interactive digital entertainment product that, from the perspective of a reasonable user of the product, is a game featuring competition with other users, provides a user with a competitive advantage with respect to the game's competitive aspects over users who do not make such a transaction."
The only exclusions listed in the bill are additional difficulty modes, cosmetic items, and downloadable expansions. So, if a company wanted to charge for a new game plus mode, they could do that. Also, the sale of skins in Fortnite and new content expansions for The Elder Scrolls Online would be perfectly acceptable. But, these guidelines as written leave a lot open to interpretation. Would it call into question selling experience point boosters in games like Anthem, Destiny 2, and World of Tanks? What about the practice of selling access to characters in Mortal Kombat 11 and Apex Legends, and even new Champions in League of Legends? Do we get to the point where, somewhere in the future, senators are arguing whether or not a particular weapon or perk is overpowered and should not be for sale?
The bill says, "an add-on transaction to a interactive digital entertainment product that [...] eases a user's progression through content otherwise available within the game without the purchase of such transaction; assists a user in accomplishing an achievement within the game that can otherwise be accomplished without the purchase of such transaction; assists a user in receiving an award associated with the game that is otherwise available in association with the game without the purchase of such transaction; or permits a user to continue to access content of the game that had previously been accessible to the user but has been made inaccessible after the expiration of a timer or a number of gameplay attempts; or with respect to an interactive digital entertainment product that, from the perspective of a reasonable user of the product, is a game featuring competition with other users, provides a user with a competitive advantage with respect to the game's competitive aspects over users who do not make such a transaction."
The only exclusions listed in the bill are additional difficulty modes, cosmetic items, and downloadable expansions. So, if a company wanted to charge for a new game plus mode, they could do that. Also, the sale of skins in Fortnite and new content expansions for The Elder Scrolls Online would be perfectly acceptable. But, these guidelines as written leave a lot open to interpretation. Would it call into question selling experience point boosters in games like Anthem, Destiny 2, and World of Tanks? What about the practice of selling access to characters in Mortal Kombat 11 and Apex Legends, and even new Champions in League of Legends? Do we get to the point where, somewhere in the future, senators are arguing whether or not a particular weapon or perk is overpowered and should not be for sale?
New way of selling (Score:4, Insightful)
What about selling X amount of euros for the game... no more strings attached
Oh wait i just got a call from 1996
Re:New way of selling (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe even "X" amount of euros for the game, and "Y" amount for an expansion. If a game needs DLC to work, the game is not a product, and is just a demo.
Re:New way of selling (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate being the devil's advocate, but what you are proposing is not applicable to MMOs. You either have to pay a monthly fee or help the developer maintain the game through other monetary means.
The F2P+Microtransactions games rely on microtransactions to ensure the game lives. Now, some developers/publishers have become greedy and offer zounds of pay-to-win packages, boxes, you-name-it. Others offer stuff that's in the gray area (for example XP boosters in case of World of Tanks), and finally others offer microtransactions that are not helping the player be better (Path of Exile, Elite: Dangerous). So there are three types of stuff one could potentially buy in a game:
1. clearly pay-to-win: "Spend 50 dollars, get this uber-weapon, kill human enemies easier"
2. clearly not pay-to-win: "Spend 50 dollars, get these colored skins for your weapon which do nothing else than make it look pretty"
3. pay-to-win-maybe (grey area): "spend 50 dollars, get double XP for each kill, the XP allows you to advance in ranks faster". Now, this is pay-to-win for some (allow spenders to advance faster) but not pay-to-win for others (you may advance faster but at each level a more skilled player could easily best you).
I am one of the people who have a big problem with #1 but no issue with #3, because some games are grindfests and I simply don't have enough time to invest hundreds or thousands of hours playing the same level repeatedly. Instead, I want to cut this time in half and I am willing to pay for it. It's the classic thing: people with little income but ample amounts of available time versus people with greater income but less available time.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. MMORPGs need to be a subscription fee.
This isn't difficult. The games industry (like many other industries) used to do just fine selling products and subscription services before they realized they could exploit gambling addictions to make more money.
Re:New way of selling (Score:5, Insightful)
This reminds me of the explosion in exercise joints in the 80s, each with a "lifetime subscription" option.
Surprise! They weren't investing it but pocketing it immediately. When the number of monthly customers dropped too much to keep going, close up shop!
MMORPGs need a monthly subscription. It is fraud otherwise. They pocket the lifetime subscriptions and rely on logo bottles and shirts to keep going?
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me of the explosion in exercise joints in the 80s, each with a "lifetime subscription" option.
AT&T is doing that right now in one of their ad campaigns.
Re: (Score:2)
That had been tried and it was shit for most MMOs. Not only it leaves many people out, but it makes the playing community smaller. There are many other smaller disadvantages, but generally this solution is worse than a F2P+microtransactions method of selling the game.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. That's some revisionist history. By "tried and was shit" you're referring to what is often called the golden age of MMOs, I presume?
Anyway, you're still welcome to make your MMO free to play, you just can't use gambling mechanics to make money. Lots of people seem to be willing to spend money on cosmetics though.
Re:New way of selling (Score:5, Insightful)
no issue with #3, because some games are grindfests and I simply don't have enough time to invest
I have a massive issue with #3 because the games are grindfests precisely to force people to pay because they don't have the time to invest.
How about just make the fucking game fun to play in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Then people who can play 12h a day would finish everything in a couple of weeks and dump the game.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is of course not the case at all. I've put thousands of hours (literally) into some games, hundreds of hours into others.
Some of them offer a continuous challenge, no matter how good I get. Some of them are designed to offer different experiences every time you play. Some of them are online social interactions. Some of them just had that much content.
It can be done. It would be done more often if the market didn't keep getting saturated by predatory games that exploit people - and yes, modern advertis
Re:New way of selling (Score:5, Insightful)
Posting AC because of modding.
All of these points are harmful. Not because they are bad in a vacuum, but because in order to sell these, the game is broken to accommodate them.
Point 1. This is pretty obvious. In order to sell pay-to-win items, the non-paid items have to be worse.
Point 2. Cool skins. In order to sell these, the non-paid skins have to look bland and boring. This has a direct impact on the game, because instead of feeling awesome when you get some hardcore raid gear, you get a bland skin that is surpassed in coolness by what you can buy at lvl1. This seriously impacts the lvl1 - lvl max feeling of power progression, again making money the primary factor between awesome and nobody. Do you remember how fantastic it felt to have the full T1 in WoW when MC came out? It felt awesome because you looked cool as hell, and everyone could see that you were a hardcore raider able to perform at the (then) highest level of difficulty. With paid cosmetics, you lose that part of the motivation in the game.
Point 3. Increased XP. In order to sell these, the base XP generation is lowered to the point where it becomes a frustrating grindfest, ruining a significant portion of the game experience. Have you tried a F2P MMO with XP boosters? They are generally slow as hell to grind through, and the experience becomes fractured and terrible. In transforming SWTOR to F2P, they cut the XP gain by a lot so they could sell subscriptions/boosters/level packs. This made the planets (zones) not give enough XP to move on the next one unless you paid, pretty much adding a lot of pointless grind to every planet before you could move on. This broke the levelling flow of the game and ruined the experience. And SWTOR is faaaaaar from the only MMO to use this approach.
So in short, while they may seem harmless, the game makes some serious concessions to accommodate them, which makes the game considerably worse for everyone.
LOL (Score:2)
"Do we get to the point where, somewhere in the future, senators are arguing whether or not a particular weapon or perk is overpowered and should not be for sale?"
I would love to hear an argument about WoW's PvP balancing efforts or LoL's nerfing of certain champions being held in Congress.
That would make my day.
Re: (Score:2)
"Do we get to the point where, somewhere in the future, senators are arguing whether or not a particular weapon or perk is overpowered and should not be for sale?"
I would love to hear an argument about WoW's PvP balancing efforts or LoL's nerfing of certain champions being held in Congress.
That would make my day.
Much more fun when it happens in the House of Lords.
There's no doubt that this bill will end up being a shitshow, with bizarre unintended consequences for games and seriously hurt the big game companies. And I can't muster an ounce of sympathy. The big game companies, both AAA and mobile, bruoght this on themselves with completely unrestrained greed, with a heavy focus on psychological manipulation of children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Do we get to the point where, somewhere in the future, senators are arguing whether or not a particular weapon or perk is overpowered and should not be for sale?"
This is all so dumb; proposing a bill doesn't imply that Congress agrees. There are steps in between
1. Propose Bill ...
2.
3. Profit!
Like for example, the fact that this sort of regulation isn't even popular in Congress, and has no chance in hell of passing, but that it provides an opportunity for lots of politicians to stand up and promise that they care about the issue, because it affects the children.
Congress may suck, but they're not going to pass something like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too late
Figures (Score:2, Insightful)
It figures the only thing these assholes can agree on is meddling in something they shouldn't be touching. Yes, video game companies that pull that horseshit are reprehensible...that's why I don't give them any money in the first place. I'm not being forced to pay for these things, so a law to ban the behavior seems like killing a fly with a stick of dynamite.
Let people make money however they will, as long as the integrity of personal choice is maintained I don't see a problem with it.
Re:Figures (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not being forced to pay for these things, so a law to ban the behavior seems like killing a fly with a stick of dynamite.
So because you don't play them you think it isn't a real problem? That's mighty self centered of you.
Let people make money however they will, as long as the integrity of personal choice is maintained I don't see a problem with it.
You are arguing that fraud should be legal as long as people know someone might swindle them. Needless to say I disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
So because you don't play them you think it isn't a real problem? That's mighty self centered of you.
I dont go around stabbing people with butter knives... but apparently thats not an argument for keeping butter knives unregulated... yes?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a fucking stupid analogy.
For a start, nobody stabs people with butter knives. Nobody is regulating butter knives. Butter knives are not being used to financially exploit the young, the naive or the stupid. Investment in butter knives is not diverting investment away from carving knives, kitchen knives, steak knives or machetes. Regulating butter knives would not stop you from acquiring or using butter knives.
But apart from that, yes, you're right. That's not an argument for keeping butter knives unre
Re: (Score:2)
Butter knives are regulated in most Sates.
1) Hide a butter knife in your pocket
2) Sneak up on somebody
3) Pull out the butter knife and saw at their arm, leaving abrasions
4) Go to prison for carrying a concealed weapon
Simply saying "butter knife" doesn't bring the meaning you wanted it to.
Another example, sell a butter knife as a chef's knife, and find out if that is already regulated! In some States it isn't. In most States, that would be an unlawfully deceptive business practice.
You have to understand firs
Re:Figures (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the problem with loot boxes is with children. Being that a lot of games are free to play, kids will download them, then when their parents see that the kid likes the game and asks for a few bucks to buy a loot box, it isn't a big deal. However what it is teaching kids is gambling, especially as some loot boxes content of all the stuff is less than buying each one independently, with a slim to no chance of getting that one item that is the real game changer. While you can say this is just bad parenting... But lets be real here, even a protective parent, will occasional give their child some candy, or a toy when it isn't Christmas or their Birthday.
So during Summer vacation, having the kid the ability to spend 10 bucks isn't that big of a deal. But the kid learns to Gamble, with the hopes of getting something good.
Unlike adults, Children are more acceptable to vices and addictions. Where an adult Buying a $2.00 loot box, and getting the big prize, or not, our reward center of our brain is dulled, we will happy if we won, and perhaps a bit miffed if we lost. But we are like hey it was $2.00 oh well. To a kid, if they Won, it would make their day, perhaps a week, and they would be extremely excited about it, if they lost, they will want to try again, to get that high they had.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's a "think of the children" argument?
No. Or rather, I'm not going to focus on children today, in this moment, but rather of people today and going forward. Laws are ugly, horrible things that should be a "last resort" kind of thing. Murder? Ok, that's fair; the act itself is worse than the cure. This? Nope. The more we get comfortable with idiots abridging our rights, the worse the country becomes.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not being forced to pay for these things, so a law to ban the behavior seems like killing a fly with a stick of dynamite.
I think gambling is a fairly clear parallel here. Of course nobody is forced to gamble, but the dopamine wizards behind the scenes are working hard to milk as much "free choice" as they can. Those dynamics tend to most significantly exploit the subpopulation that is least able to afford it, so gambling is either banned outright or heavily regulated. (And yes, I personally can largely get past that and view gambling as what it is -- just another form of paying for entertainment, with any profit being ic
Re: (Score:2)
Should private schools be allowed to open casinos to increase the profits without even informing the parents?
Re: (Score:2)
It figures the only thing these assholes can agree on is meddling in something they shouldn't be touching.
Unlike you, they probably at least know what their steps are.
They haven't agreed to anything, something was merely proposed. I know, details, details, how can you be expected to understand details?!
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy additional storage space, it should be permanent.
Tell that to your landlord, or to the local property taxing authority.
Re: (Score:2)
He said buy, not rent.
The description of these particular MMOs' inventory mechanics made it sound like the game was clear up front that storage space was available for rental and not available for purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
Even "buying" doesn't matter. City of Heroes shut down, taking all your characters, progress, paid-for vanity items, and base building with it. (Imagine Minecraft shutting down and taking all the servers with it.)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that so many practically-minded people buy Civics and Corollas did not put sportscar, truck, or muscle car makers out of business.
However, in fourth quarter 2012, the fact that so many people were buying tablets was putting makers of compact laptops out of business, or at least out of the compact laptop segment, because the economies of scale were no longer there. See "Does 2012 Mark the End of the Netbook?" [slashdot.org].
it's not like my gaming computers have any sort of payment information that they automatically upload to someone.
How did you buy lawfully made copies of the modern computer games in the first place? For example, did you buy a box containing a product key with cash at a brick-and-mortar store and then redeem the product key on a Steam account
Start by getting rid the slot part say no mystery (Score:4, Interesting)
Start by getting rid the slot part say no mystery stuff they must say up front what get for buying.
As for weapon or perk is overpowered say if an game as $100 weapon that people who want can buy it that price and not say $1 an pull for a chance to get it.
Re:Start by getting rid the slot part say no myste (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd get behind this. If the game gives you a "free" box (either for an achievement, for playing a certain amount of time, etc), then having it be a random "mystery box" is fine. You haven't paid anything for it so it's not like you are paying $10 for the "chance" to get an ultra-rare item but always get the extremely common items instead. But if you're spending your money, you should know what you're getting.
About the only "paid random" box I might accept would be one where there are a set of outcomes and each time you open one that outcome is removed from the list. For example, say you pay $X open a box that says you could get A, B, C, or D where A and B are common items, C is uncommon, and D is the really rare item you want. You pay to open the box and get A. The box should then only give out B, C, or D so that the maximum cost of D would be 4X dollars. At least with this, it is easy to figure out how much the maximum is that you'd need to pay for the desired item and whether you're willing to pay that amount.
Box gacha, aka sampling without replacement (Score:2)
About the only "paid random" box I might accept would be one where there are a set of outcomes and each time you open one that outcome is removed from the list.
In statistics, this sort of loot box mechanic that never gives you something you already received is called random sampling without replacement [wikipedia.org]. In the industry, it's called box gacha [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
And the average cost for your heart's desire is X times $1 per key, where X is number of possible items / 2. 100 items? $50 on average.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen games with this system. I used to play Disney Crossy Road (years ago, before it stopped updating for some reason). There were two "gacha" prize boxes you could open. The first - the easiest to obtain - was bought using in-game earned currency. This could give you duplicate characters (which were traded automatically for premium currency). The second - bought using premium currency either earned in-game or bought for real money - would only give you characters you didn't have. (If you had all the c
Re: (Score:2)
So, you want to change the definition of "uncommon" and "really rare" to be, say, 25%?
Re: (Score:2)
My example was purposefully simplified. Common/uncommon/rare in this case might mean availability of obtaining via other methods. (Maybe you almost always get A from common game actions.) It could also be that the initial chances of getting each item are 40% for A, 40% for B, 15% for C, and 5% for D. Thus, your chances of getting D right away are low, but increase with each box you open as other items are removed. For example, you open a box and get A then perhaps the chances would rise to 55% for B, 30% fo
Re: (Score:2)
Start by getting rid the slot part say no mystery stuff they must say up front what get for buying.
As for weapon or perk is overpowered say if an game as $100 weapon that people who want can buy it that price and not say $1 an pull for a chance to get it.
I was ready to pay well over $100 to have my own Atlas in Mechwarrior Online. Thankfully I found out it was just PvP battle arenas and no PvE, so noped to the whole thing.
Legislating arcades and MMOs out of existence (Score:3)
"permits a user to continue to access content of the game that had previously been accessible to the user but has been made inaccessible after the expiration of a timer or a number of gameplay attempts"
Taken at face value, this would ban both coin-operated arcade games, where "a number of gameplay attempts" has been standard since the 1970s, and subscription online games, which use use "a timer" measured in months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t see how this would ban coin-operated game machines.
Inserting money grants "a number of gameplay attempts" called "lives." After these expire, the entire game "has been made inaccessible" until more money is inserted.
Re: (Score:2)
An add-on transaction to a interactive digital entertainment product that [...] eases a user’s progression through content otherwise available within the game without the purchase of such transaction; assists a user in accomplishing an achievement within the game that can otherwise be accomplished without the purchase of such transaction; assists a user in receiving an award associated with the game that is otherwise available in association with the game without the purchase of such transaction; or permits a user to continue to access content of the game that had previously been accessible to the user but has been made inaccessible after the expiration of a timer or a number of gameplay attempts; or with respect to an interactive digital entertainment product that, from the perspective of a reasonable user of the product, is a game featuring competition with other users, provides a user with a competitive advantage with respect to the game’s competitive aspects over users who do not make such a transaction.
Citing only one part of it is taking it out of context.
Re: (Score:2)
Which specific part of the full text makes it not apply to buying a continue in a coin-operated game? An arcade game is "a interactive digital entertainment product", the purchase of a continue is "An add-on transaction", and it "[...] or permits a user to continue to access content of the game that had previously been accessible to the user but has been made inaccessible after the expiration of a timer or a number of gameplay attempts".
Re: (Score:2)
or with respect to an interactive digital entertainment product that, from the perspective of a reasonable user of the product, is a game featuring competition with other users, provides a user with a competitive advantage with respect to the game’s competitive aspects over users who do not make such a transaction.
"or" in legalese (Score:2)
You may have missed the "or" at the beginning of what you quoted. This means the purchase has to hit only one of those five points to constitute pay to win: eases progression, assists an achievement, assists reward, permits continued access, or provides a competitive advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
You're still taking it out of context. The first sentence you quoted 'permits a user...' is in the definition of 'Pay to win micro-transaction'. That sentence does not say micro-transactions are illegal, it just defines what they are. What is illegal is for 'Digital Game Distributors' and 'Game Publishers' to have micro-transactions. And Digital Game Distributors and Game Publishers are also defined. And THEY are defined as '... distributes an interactive digital entertainment product over an online pla
Re: (Score:2)
An arcade game is not an 'interactive digital entertainment device' according to the definition in the bill, which requires the game to on a 'connected device'.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in that context it sounds like outlawing another quarter inserted after your last life, and having the option to continue on, rather than start anew.
Is there something else they are thinking of with this?
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the whole bill, including the definitions, what they object to are 'pay-to-win microtransactions' in ONLINE games, not 'pay-to-keep-playing'. They are trying to keep minors from thinking that the only way to compete in an on-line game is to pay more money than the next guy.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the market took arcades out of existence.... seriously, where are these "arcades" you speak of these days?
Re: (Score:3)
"permits a user to continue to access content of the game that had previously been accessible to the user but has been made inaccessible after the expiration of a timer or a number of gameplay attempts"
Taken at face value, this would ban both coin-operated arcade games, where "a number of gameplay attempts" has been standard since the 1970s, and subscription online games, which use use "a timer" measured in months.
Your concern is directly addressed in the current draft of the bill [senate.gov]:
(B) EXCLUSION.—Such a term shall not include a payment (including a payment of a regular subscription fee) which is made only to allow a user to access the content of an interactive digital entertainment product, provided that users do not have the option to pay different amounts to access the same content in order to unlock a feature of the product or to enhance the entertainment value of the product.
That explicitly covers subscriptions, and clearly covers real-time payments like coin-ops as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I can complain about cherry picked incomplete sentences too...
Then you must be a lawyer, or a district attorney, or an attorney general. Because those people cherry pick incomplete sentences and even misplaced punctuation for massive payouts, fines, and political points.
Disjunctions are common in legalese (Score:2)
As for "cherry-picked", when a statute, regulation, or contract uses the word "or", this is called a "disjunction", and the reader is allowed to elide phrases or clauses that do not apply to a particular solution.
As for "incomplete sentence", here's the context in the form of a complete sentence:
CORRECTION: I was full of crap (Score:3)
It appears you're right about "add-on transaction" not including the base fee for access. On rereading, I found this, which I missed the first time:
Re: (Score:2)
Now that I think about it, the "timer" provision would affect more than paid MMOs like World of Warcraft. It would also affect paid matchmaking services, such as Xbox Live Gold, PlayStation Plus, and Nintendo Switch Online.
Re: (Score:2)
You know the intent here
I also know that the more far-reaching a law is, the more likely it is to have unintended consequences once a judge gets her kangaroo paws on it.
How this will work out (Score:3)
All the fun games quickly set up their own support sites well outside the USA.
With a list of many bank, CC and payment option in the users own nation.
People from the USA are given new payment methods outside the USA.
Will US CC brands have to report and block the use of their CC products globally from all such sites?
The games are now outside the USA and still attracting users. Users who pay.
Work visas (Score:2)
Why pay a % to a US digital distribution platform and then face US game laws?
Because the owners of a video game studio are U.S. citizens residing in the U.S., as are its employees. To which country or countries should an affected studio consider relocating? Take into account, among other things, the cost of obtaining work visas elsewhere for all or even a majority of a studio's employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Hows that working out for US TV and movie production?
Re 'owners of a video game studio are U.S. citizens"
Other nations can't code for an OS? Cant find their own music and game art?
Cant find people to translate a project into English?
Re "To which country or countries should an affected studio consider relocating?" The people buying the game can find a new game outside of the US with all the features they expect.
What a
Re: (Score:2)
The people buying the game can find a new game outside of the US with all the features they expect.
Not if a U.S. company holds copyright in the characters, the setting, the details of the game mechanics (such as those of Tetris), etc. Having to license those from the U.S. company is likely to bring the U.S.-based licensor within the scope of a law like this.
Re: (Score:2)
US gamers can then find a way to "buy" in.
The game company has not reason to stay in the USA to face laws that other nations do not have.
The music, art, design, OS support is international. Story is a bit more difficult but lots of smart people are creative.
A change to US laws might just be the "reason" to open a search for a new global HQ.
See what other nations govs offer in terms
Re: (Score:2)
What way will US gamers find to "buy in"? They still have to use the US banking system, which will drag the owners into it if they want to get paid.
Also, who wants this crap? Who defends idiotic gambling on loot boxes?
Just offer the goodies for direct purchase.
Canning your lead designers (Score:2)
You wouldn't "obtain work visas", you'd can your current employees and hire anew in selected locale.
Doing that with your lead designers would be like liquidating your human capital. Imagine if, for example, Nintendo had to let Mr. Miyamoto go.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't "obtain work visas", you'd can your current employees and hire anew in selected locale. That's how outsourcing usually works: you don't move the actual employees over, you get new ones.
They still use the US banking system, as many a dictator and their cronies around the world have found out the hard way.
We have treaties (Score:2)
It's the same reason online gambling is still illegal. Yeah, it happens, but it's relegated to the nastier places of the Internet. You're not going to see a Smurfs tie-in game there.
Re: (Score:2)
Why pay a % to a US digital distribution platform and then face US game laws?
They'll still have to comply with US laws if they do business in the US, or else they'll get fined.
All the fun games quickly set up their own support sites well outside the USA.
Doesn't matter. They're still subject to US jurisdiction when they sell products to US citizens.
They could opt out of the US gaming market entirely, but there is probably a profitable middle ground where the game is available within the US with modified, legal features.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! Kinda like when they banned online poker!
Answer in the question? (Score:2)
Would it call into question selling experience point boosters in games like Anthem, Destiny 2, and World of Tanks? What about the practice of selling access to characters in Mortal Kombat 11 and Apex Legends, and even new Champions in League of Legends? Do we get to the point where, somewhere in the future, senators are arguing whether or not a particular weapon or perk is overpowered and should not be for sale?
Would these give an advantage to the user that other users wouldn't get without purchase (as the bill outlines)?
Tires exits. (Score:2)
What about the practice of selling access to characters
Would these give an advantage to the user that other users wouldn't get without purchase (as the bill outlines)?
Yes. The 1Q 2018 tier list for Super Smash Bros. For [reddit.com] lists the two most powerful characters as Cloud Strife and Bayonetta. Both characters are paid DLC.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The 1Q 2018 tier list for Super Smash Bros. For [reddit.com] lists the two most powerful characters as Cloud Strife and Bayonetta. Both characters are paid DLC.
So I guess the poster's question is really about if existing DLC would be governed by this new bill, which I believe it would be.
Re: (Score:2)
Has Smash Brothers changed?
What changed is that online play became more robust.
Last time I played, everyone got access to the unlocked characters before starting the round, not just player one.
This remains true for a same-screen match. But if players one and two in an online match are on a console where the character has not been unlocked, and players three and four are on a console where the character has been unlocked, only players three and four can select the character.
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure there are some things that gamers in general think are okay that will get caught in the crossfire, but the game industry really brought this on themselves through their attempts to ruthlessly exploit a new source of revenue with no concern for the overall effect on the consumer. Once they'd given everyone the impression that they were trying to exploit the users as hard as possible it only takes a couple sob stories about people with gambling addictions running themselves into bankruptcy or kids spending thousands of dollars on their parents' credit cards for lawmakers to decide to get involved. It's pretty much a classic tragedy of the commons situation.
All about the $$$ (Score:2)
The cash addicted government has sniffed out a new revenue stream they don't have a hand in. Just watch the outcome be a tax these companies pay and then business as usual.
Consumerism (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Buy from GOG if that's what you want. I do. I'm bewildered by all the players who prefer online DRM "rental model"
Not all video games are available on GOG or Itch.io, and you can't play LAN or online multiplayer between two different games.[1] In particular, you can't play LAN or online multiplayer between games from two different publishers, one that publishes on GOG or Itch.io and one that does not. So if others in your circle of friends play games not available on GOG or Itch.io, you have to either A. convince them to stop playing the games they play and start playing games on GOG or Itch.io or B. sit out every matc
Here's my take on this (Score:2)
Not a gamer myself, but:
No taking winnings or purchases back out of the game or trading with other players. Because that's gambling.
Yes, you can buy add-ons, new skins or whatever you want. But in doing so, you have become a new player. No moving points or other stuff collected from old to new accounts. The only stuff you can keep is stuff you earn within the game based on achievement.
Re: (Score:2)
No taking winnings or purchases back out of the game or trading with other players. Because that's gambling.
Online gambling is legal in the USA, but prohibited by individual state laws. They could permit it on a state-by-state basis, if there were money in it. But keeping it out of the hands of underage players would be extra work, so it would be smartest to prohibit it.
Why? (Score:2)
I don't understand why this legislation is required - just require that manufacturers put a disclose on the game "Completing this game may require additional in-game purchases", and let the buyer decide if he wants to do that or not.
This is a society where you can go to an in-network hospital for healthcare, yet still be charges tens of thousands of dollars because an out-of-network provider in that hospital provided care, and there's no way to know until the bills come that this will happen, even your own
Re: (Score:2)
This and more.
Forenite makes is very clear that purchases don't do anything other than cosmetic changes. Of course some skins are easier to see, but that's a player's choice.
Regarding medical insurance. I once had an axe head shoot into my leg while prepping fire wood while camping. Rather rural area. The nurse that was with us said "to the hospital" and we went to the local one rather than a 90 minute drive to the big city (wound was under control, needed some internal and external stitches).
Our insura
Make Video Games Great Again! (Score:2)
Are these new video games annoying because you never know the real price of a game? Yes, I think so. Does an obscure law that will not be able to do much fix the contract between players and creators? I don't think so.
This is really about parents complaining about video games, and the politicians wanting to put the screws to the video game makers to make it look like they are doing something.
--
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who r
Talk about overcomplicating things (Score:2)
I'm not going to try to write it in legalese, but there are basically only two ways you can classify in-game purchases, and only two basic flavors of purchases, for a total of four types. There's purchases where you know what you're going to get or you don't, and there's purchases where they affect gameplay or they don't. Buying a continue in an arcade affects gameplay, and you know what you're going to get, so there's that supposedly edge case sorted.
I don't really have an opinion on cosmetic items aside f
Lobbying = Congressional microtransactions (Score:5, Insightful)
Leveling the playing field. (Score:2)
Cosmetic items you say? (Score:4, Interesting)
Loot shooters are about to get FABULOUS. Everyone will start out with a sequined suit and a bedazzled gun that shoots rounds that leave trails. Plain or camo suits/gun skins and regular ammo cost extra ;-)
I don't understand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Even as a kid it seemed to me that the parents who encouraged their kids to collect hockey cards and objected to them playing poker were massive hypocrites.
Also the losers who lost all their money on hockey cards couldn't lose it to me in poker.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really the same thing. Hockey cards have a value outside of what you can sell them for if they happen to appreciate. At least when i was a kid, I enjoyed looking at the picture, reading some stats, something interesting about the player, etc.
I can't think of buying a pack of playing cards be useful for anything but playing the game. Some people enjoy playing no-stakes poker for the fun of it, but yeah, if you're buying sports cards because you're hoping they will appreciate in value, it's no differen
Re: (Score:2)
It's true, I'm sure sports cards started innocently, especially when they used to come free with another product, like a cereal box prize. But by the time my friends were collecting them in the 80s and 90s they were absolutely being collected for their value "as an investment." The packs were expensive, and the cards would go straight out of the package and into plastic holders. I seem to remember some kid even had a book that broke down which product from which manufacturer had the highest potential payout
Re: (Score:2)
But by the time my friends were collecting them in the 80s and 90s they were absolutely being collected for their value "as an investment.
Ironically, by the 80s and 90s, most new printed baseball cards were destined to have no real value.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. They were all convinced they were going to be rich though. I suspect mostly because their fathers told them sports cards were a great investment, based on their having missed out on those bubble gum card fortunes.
Re: I don't understand (Score:2)
Ea : Research paper to maximize âoeengagement (Score:3, Interesting)
Good its all turned to useless crap (Score:2)
Wargaming needs to be reigned in. You cannot progress in any of their games without constantly paying out money to progress.
Pay to win (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
stupid. (Score:2)
Address the used games market instead. Purchases tied to a key or account need to be fully and legally transferable.