No, that’s quite the extreme opposite end of the spectrum.
I just think that, in general, we should refrain from making laws unless it’s to protect victims. I don’t think, in general, people choosing to waste money on stupid games qualifies as being a victim, you can’t victimize yourself. However, changing the terms after the sale certainly qualifies as a bait and switch, and should be illegal and strictly prosecuted.
If we just make laws for every problem we see, we’ll get incredibly inconsistent enforcement. If we have a narrower set of laws, we should see more effective enforcement. That’s where I’m coming from. Save the legislation for truly important things and follow up on enforcement.
That’s where I’m coming from. Save the legislation for truly important things
I don’t disagree, but I feel you’re kind of assuming everyone is capable of rationally engaging with these stupid games. It’s the irrational ones I worry about. Loot boxes and gambling addicts, for instance.
That said, though, the validity of blaming companies for the bad decisions they make knowing they’ll catch so many fish in their net is all I’m really here for. I’ve no idea how I’d “regulate early access” or if that’s even worth doing.
If someone is looking for an addiction, they’ll find it, whether it’s mobile games, live service PC/console games, or actual online gambling. Banning addictions isn’t going to work, the people making these things will just innovate around whatever the regulations are. Gambling is illegal in my area, yet people find all kinds of creative ways to get their fix.
The solution isn’t to ban addicting things, but to teach people to avoid them. This is a behavioral problem, not a legal problem.
the people making these things will just innovate around whatever the regulations are
This is why I asked if you think laws are useless.
And yeah, casinos and whatever will skirt the laws (if they’re able), but the point of regulating a practice is to keep things from getting out of hand.
Predatory gambling games are basically just fancy theft. You create games that are unwinnable, and then you goad suckers into taking the bet. It’s regulations that keep a lot of them even marginally fair.
This is a behavioral problem,
And what of the business’ behavior? Should we not teach them to be better?
It’s regulations that keep a lot of them even marginally fair.
Sure, but those regulations aren’t about the addictiveness or whatever, they’re about transparency. If the odds of the game aren’t clear or accurate, they can get into a lot of trouble.
Businesses are motivated by profit, so they’ll do whatever they think will make them the most money. Getting businesses to behave requires making “bad” behaviors less profitable than “good” behaviors, and that’s an endless game of whack-a-mole, especially when a lot of laws just aren’t enforced consistently enough to matter, or the fines are lobbied down to relevance.
People are often motivated by pleasure, and replacing one from of pleasure (predatory games) with another is quite feasible, especially if you can point out how to find less predatory games. Making regulations to help this be transparent is a lot easier than making them go away.
So no, we shouldn’t try to teach businesses anything because they don’t learn. We should instead force them to be transparent and teach people to interpret that.
No, that’s quite the extreme opposite end of the spectrum.
I just think that, in general, we should refrain from making laws unless it’s to protect victims. I don’t think, in general, people choosing to waste money on stupid games qualifies as being a victim, you can’t victimize yourself. However, changing the terms after the sale certainly qualifies as a bait and switch, and should be illegal and strictly prosecuted.
If we just make laws for every problem we see, we’ll get incredibly inconsistent enforcement. If we have a narrower set of laws, we should see more effective enforcement. That’s where I’m coming from. Save the legislation for truly important things and follow up on enforcement.
I don’t disagree, but I feel you’re kind of assuming everyone is capable of rationally engaging with these stupid games. It’s the irrational ones I worry about. Loot boxes and gambling addicts, for instance.
That said, though, the validity of blaming companies for the bad decisions they make knowing they’ll catch so many fish in their net is all I’m really here for. I’ve no idea how I’d “regulate early access” or if that’s even worth doing.
If someone is looking for an addiction, they’ll find it, whether it’s mobile games, live service PC/console games, or actual online gambling. Banning addictions isn’t going to work, the people making these things will just innovate around whatever the regulations are. Gambling is illegal in my area, yet people find all kinds of creative ways to get their fix.
The solution isn’t to ban addicting things, but to teach people to avoid them. This is a behavioral problem, not a legal problem.
This is why I asked if you think laws are useless.
And yeah, casinos and whatever will skirt the laws (if they’re able), but the point of regulating a practice is to keep things from getting out of hand.
Predatory gambling games are basically just fancy theft. You create games that are unwinnable, and then you goad suckers into taking the bet. It’s regulations that keep a lot of them even marginally fair.
And what of the business’ behavior? Should we not teach them to be better?
Sure, but those regulations aren’t about the addictiveness or whatever, they’re about transparency. If the odds of the game aren’t clear or accurate, they can get into a lot of trouble.
Businesses are motivated by profit, so they’ll do whatever they think will make them the most money. Getting businesses to behave requires making “bad” behaviors less profitable than “good” behaviors, and that’s an endless game of whack-a-mole, especially when a lot of laws just aren’t enforced consistently enough to matter, or the fines are lobbied down to relevance.
People are often motivated by pleasure, and replacing one from of pleasure (predatory games) with another is quite feasible, especially if you can point out how to find less predatory games. Making regulations to help this be transparent is a lot easier than making them go away.
So no, we shouldn’t try to teach businesses anything because they don’t learn. We should instead force them to be transparent and teach people to interpret that.