GoldenXLooks like I hit a nerve with my comment. Good.

Because insulting members from the U.S. with zero power to fix the portion of military games from the U.S. is the model for how to successfully make change happen that is to your liking? :shadedshu: If your intent was to be antagonistic, bravo!

rtwjunkieBecause insulting members from the U.S. with zero power to fix the portion of military games from the U.S. is the model for how to successfully make change happen that is to your liking? :shadedshu: If your intent was to be antagonistic, bravo!

Mission Failed, we'll get 'em next time.

My government's stupidity continues, how about parents step up and say "no, you can't buy whatever you want." While we're at it adults should stop supporting such "exploitative games". If the developer is that greedy, one simply has an option not to participate. Passing laws like this will only force companies to think of another way to squeeze people. If one truly wants change, then vote with your dollars.

DeathtoGnomesthis is the result of kids stealing mom's credit card from her purse while she is showering.

Loot boxes are gambling, should never have been allowed.

I stole thinks as a kid, mostly out of want, and I got caught and learned that you have to work for what you get.

So it begs the question of do we hand over all responsibility to the government that can't fix roads, healthcare, pollution, keep guns out the criminals hands...... Or do we become the individual we should be and do what's right for us?

Less government is good in almost all areas of life.

the54thvoidPaying to win should be seen in a discriminatory context. It's not so much, people buying in-game items; it's that those who don't, are disadvantaged. That's the unfairness, not the financial concept. If in game transactions were only for aesthetics, then it's fine. That's a buyer's choice. But if not paying in game fees means you can't win, then that's the real issue.

Well, that would be true if gaming was a fundamental human right. It's not.

EarthDogThis is where parents and parenting comes in... which is a lot of the reasons for these problems. Not setting up proper expectations and a view of reality.

How do you "parent" when your kid comes crying from school because everyone has moved onto FIFA 2020 and they're stuck on FIFA 2019 having no one to play with?
I agree with you poor parenting is the source of many evils these days, but I don't think parenting on your own can stand up to the cash grabbing schemes that pass as games these days. It's just too insidious a problem.

Well, banning lootboxes would not hurt anyone. Though parents really, really should take care of their kids more and that includes allowing appropriate games only (yes yes, some ratings are dumb, I know).

bugHow do you "parent" when your kid comes crying from school because everyone has moved onto FIFA 2020 and they're stuck on FIFA 2019 having no one to play with?
I agree with you poor parenting is the source of many evils these days, but I don't think parenting on your own can stand up to the cash grabbing schemes that pass as games these days. It's just too insidious a problem.

I have those discussions with my kids (Fortnite skins/Battlepass for one example) on a monthly basis with my kids. Sure they are dissapointed I won't buy it for them... but they know how to work and save their money. Its a lesson in life. You can't always get what you want. It really is that simple. The problem.....its not EASY being a parent and doing that so they have proper expectations..etc.

SplinterdogThe nanny state puts another nail in the parents' responsibility coffin.

bugI agree with what you say, but only when it comes to adults.
Children shouldn't learn from playing that the way forward is paying for shortcuts. Psychlogists would have a field day analyzing this.

More like: people try to avert hysteresis by regressing their ego state. Gaming always had a mixed stake, it is just that trigger-happy fps gaming was nothing but gambling with a sightscope. You just don't want to admit it that IQ games are more shallow than EQ games, as those in the rpg genre. To them idiots, they are just 'boring'.

SteevoWhile I hate pay to play or pay to win concepts the free market should be able to decide if they want to spend money on games, smokes, beer, movies, cable, or whatever they want to do with their money.

For adults, yes very much agreed. However children are easily swayed and manipulated. I agree with this ban as long as it is limited to people under the age of 13 which falls in line with currently existing laws.

EarthDogThis is where parents and parenting comes in... which is a lot of the reasons for these problems. Not setting up proper expectations and a view of reality.

True, but remembering when I was a kid, my parents had very little control over me after about age 9. This is why we have laws limiting the sale of tobacco and alcohol to adults. The entertainment industry already has certain regulations covering it's behavior and this is a good logical step in the correct direction for gaming on all platforms.

The "Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act" would prohibit all games geared towards children, that implement a "pay to win" model where a player is progressing through the game by paying for it.

So that would be pretty much 90% of mobile games right now.

Got to admit: getting to like rpg games hits you like a hammer, you need to silence your ego.

arbiterSo that would be pretty much 90% of mobile games right now.

That's not a bad thing. It'll force devs to charge for games up front which it the way it should be anyway.

I don't like pay-to-win and lootboxes, however we need actually useful internet bills like a digital bill of rights defending free speech and copyright reforms. Nobody has pushed a bill worth a crap for that. The whole lootbox crap gets more attention than the rampant censorship and copyright abuse. I've had 2 twitter accounts banned that were harmless fun. One a bad eateries one that was fictional and never used actual restaurants (There's no longhorn steakhouse in parkersburg and darden themselves has no plan to have one, for example, and there's no such thing as a table mountain buffet in pikeville, ky.) and I had an abstract poetry twitter that was deleted as well.

I'd rather, also pay for the game and earn my upgrades thru gameplay, not buying them and not having any character development. However. No need to legislate that.

DeathtoGnomesthis is the result of kids stealing mom's credit card from her purse while she is showering.

Loot boxes are gambling, should never have been allowed.

Or the result of parents linking their CC to games and allowing children to play unsupervised.
Just recently a family I know got $600 refunded after their 6Y.O. wracked up that much on their card in purchases thinking he was getting all this free stuff in the game.

First let's lay out some facts...
One Page Summary of the Protecting Children Abusive games Act which cites...
Title 16: Commercial Practices, PART 312—CHILDREN'S ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION RULE

This would be determined by subject matter, visual content, and other indicators similar to those used to determine applicability of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)

How does COPPA work? Information persons under the age of 13 is broadly off limits for internet companies. That's clearly defined. There's no judgement factor in regards to content.

What I'm trying to get at here is how do they qualify "subject matter, visual content, and other indictators?" These things are broadly protected under the 1st amendment. This is not generally a decision the government has the right to make anyway. All government can do is advise (e.g. require appropriate labeling of TV shows and films indicating what age is generally considered appropriate for the content). It can't generally impose restrictions on access to said content that a parent or guardian doesn't enable.

If the goal is to prevent kids from getting access to gambling-like mechanisms, this is a pretty terrible way to go about it...

Games with wider audiences whose developers knowingly allow minor players to engage in microtransactions

Microtransactions require payment, payment usually links to a credit card, and there are major restrictions in regards to having a credit card. In other words, this statement is pointless.


Reading the rest of the "one pager," it's just as ridiculous...

The solution is two fold and simple:

1) Categorize "microtransactions" and "pay-to-win" as gambling so all gambling laws apply. If a child gets swindled into these gambling systems, they can't be held accountable for whatever alleged fees they incurred because, like any casino, they should have been shown the door and not allowed to participate. Games simply have to be designed to allow digital purchases to be rescinded/forfeited (parent tells game publisher these were unauthorized by a child, they refund the money and take everything purchased off the account). Put a 60 day limit on this so it extends into/past credit card grace periods/due dates.

2) Throw ESRB to the curb and extend the ratings system created by the FTC to video games to inform buyers in a reasonable way. ESRB profits by keeping these manipulative practices in shadow. There's also nothing to compel any game from getting ESRB rated other than to be sold on consoles by Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. FTC could compel video games to be rated before they can go on sale in the USA so there isn't holes in rating.

Seriously why is this only for PC/console gaming??? How about the Mobile gaming where almost 95% of the crappy games on Android/IOS are using the Pay-to-Win method via different methods.

The interpretation of "manipulative" can also be defined as those that influence or brainwash, not just coerce into spending.
Goodbye violent, sexual and racing games. RIP NFS.

Just gettin em ready for real life. We gotta pay to win. Sure, walking miles to work is great fun, but a car will get you there faster. Sick of punching nails in with your bare hands? Buy a hammer!

"Ugh! Muh video games!" Nobody is forcing you to play.

Caring1Or the result of parents linking their CC to games and allowing children to play unsupervised.
Just recently a family I know got $600 refunded after their 6Y.O. wracked up that much on their card in purchases thinking he was getting all this free stuff in the game.

Bravo to them getting the refund as I believe it isn't an easy quest.

My thoughts are that if a game is designed for a 6 year old to play, there shouldn't be in app purchases. If a game is designed for 15+ and a 6 year old is playing it, it is a parental issue IMO.

SteevoI stole thinks as a kid, mostly out of want, and I got caught and learned that you have to work for what you get.

So it begs the question of do we hand over all responsibility to the government that can't fix roads, healthcare, pollution, keep guns out the criminals hands...... Or do we become the individual we should be and do what's right for us?

Less government is good in almost all areas of life.

While I agree that "we" are the problem, I don't agree with your conclusion, because you're missing something : people are dumb.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need laws or anything to guide us because mankind is so smart they can handle themselves.

But here is the truth : we aren't that smart. You can just look at all monotheist religion, which even have to tell you not to kill nor cheat your wife or steal from others !


This doesn't mean I agree with that Senator either.
Lootboxes are bad, but they are not gambling. Pay to win is bad also, but here again : vote with your wallet (even if I hate using this sentence).

Parents job, not governments. I would agree that requiring a warning label for "Pay 2 Win" games is long overdue. The purchase should be recorded as such on the credit card / pay pal bill with the same advisory saying that "User has ability to make CC payments in Game up to $xxxx.00 without further authorization. " and allow full refund at that point...or better yet, rewquired card holder to respond before any "from game" authorizations can me made. If parents aren't looking at their bills, then it's their fault.

This kind of thing is the parents' responsibility, not the government's. Yeah, pay to win games suck a$$, but it's not the government's job to regulate freaking games lmao

SpicySaladThis kind of thing is the parents' responsibility, not the government's. Yeah, pay to win games suck a$$, but it's not the government's job to regulate freaking games lmao

We label movies, TV shows and games already, why would we exempt a gaming aspect from the rating?

Caring1Or the result of parents linking their CC to games and allowing children to play unsupervised.
Just recently a family I know got $600 refunded after their 6Y.O. wracked up that much on their card in purchases thinking he was getting all this free stuff in the game.

that happens more often then what we see or hear about.

PEGI/ESRB is for parent guidelines, parents need to be parents again.

I owned Streets of Rage 1 and other violent games before the age of 12 and I am ok because of morality that we don't go around bashing skulls in or shooting people for fun. Parents need to be parents again, not let phones be pacifiers and parents not being childrens friends but parents.