US Senator Proposes a Ban on "Manipulative" Video Games

[AleksandarK]

Yesterday, a US senator called Josh Hawley announced a bill to legalize banning of so-called "manipulative" video game design in the United States. The decision was proposed yesterday to US Congress.

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. The Senator also added that titles with paid-for in-game awards, such as loot boxes, are supposed to get banned. For overseeing and enforcing the ban, the Federal Trade Commission would be in charge. The FTC in-turn would hire state attorneys to prosecute companies violating the ban.




"No matter this business model's advantages to the tech industry, one thing is clear: there is no excuse for exploiting children through such practices", said Senator Hawley, adding to his point.

The Entertainment Software Association on Wednesday put out a statement rejecting Hawley's proposal. The president and CEO of the video game industry trade group, Stanley Pierre-Louis, pointed out that numerous countries like Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, determined that loot boxes do not classify as gambling.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[cucker tarlson]

What about the systematic exploitation of manchildren? At what age does it become moral to "exploit" a person?

 

[Steevo]

While 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. This isn't a children's issue, it's a government overreach issue. Parents too should have the ability to do as they please.

 

[Crackong]

Bye bye stupid loot boxes.

 

[Renald]

And earlier this week people were spitting at China for being a dictatorship ^^
That's so funny

 

[Beertintedgoggles]

My biggest issue with these proposed, and in some places enacted, bans is that no one is forcing these naive and helpless children to play these games in the first place. Also, aren't we now supposed to listen to these children on important issues such as gun control, climate change, economic imbalances, etc? But on this issue they are clueless and must be protected? Make up your damn mind! Additionally, why wouldn't this also be applicable to baseball cards? Keep buying those loot boxes (you know, the ones with all the cards and a stick of gum in them in the grocery aisle) until you get the player you want. Or lets go back to the 80's.... you need to buy the best slammer so you get all your opponents Pogs. Seems like we all survived that just fine. Why is everyone up in arms to regulate an industry that is not forced onto anyone and doesn't affect your life in any way other than being an entertainment value? /rant

 

[Cybrnook2002]

What about the systematic exploitation of manchildren? At what age does it become moral to "exploit" a person?

18

 

[zo0lykas]

Good, 1st game on the list world of tanks

 

[john_]

That's not a bad idea. The "pay to win" model is disgusting and if the politicians can't ban it completely, for any kind of reasons, at least making those kind of games not accessible to children would be a step in the correct direction.

 

[bug]

While 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. This isn't a children's issue, it's a government overreach issue. Parents too should have the ability to do as they please.

I 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.

 

[the54thvoid]

Paying 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.

 

[metalfiber]

But if not paying in game fees means you can't win, then that's the real issue.

I totally agree with that concept. Buy an upgrade so it's easier to win is one thing and being not able to win at all without paying is another.

 

[Splinterdog]

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

 

[EarthDog]

Children shouldn't learn from playing that the way forward is paying for shortcuts.

This 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.

 

[FYFI13]

As a gamer - all the way YES.

 

[GoldenX]

So, no "manipulative games". That also means no more military propaganda? Heh, no more American games then.

 

[rtwjunkie]

So, no "manipulative games". That also means no more military propaganda? Heh, no more American games then.

Because military shooters are only put out by American studios...

My biggest issue with these proposed, and in some places enacted, bans is that no one is forcing these naive and helpless children to play these games in the first place. Also, aren't we now supposed to listen to these children on important issues such as gun control, climate change, economic imbalances, etc? But on this issue they are clueless and must be protected? Make up your damn mind! Additionally, why wouldn't this also be applicable to baseball cards? Keep buying those loot boxes (you know, the ones with all the cards and a stick of gum in them in the grocery aisle) until you get the player you want. Or lets go back to the 80's.... you need to buy the best slammer so you get all your opponents Pogs. Seems like we all survived that just fine. Why is everyone up in arms to regulate an industry that is not forced onto anyone and doesn't affect your life in any way other than being an entertainment value? /rant

I have to mostly agree that we can’t seem to make up our damned minds. Either children are smart and mature enough that we are supposed to listen to them (gun control, climate change, free college), or they really don’t know squat yet. Personally I don’t think 97% of them know squat yet and most never will, but this bill would, if enacted, keep even more parents from being responsible.

 

[damric]

So much for Republicans being for "smaller government regulation". I guess that only applies to laws that would keep them from screwing over the working class and poor.

 

[robot zombie]

Call me crazy for asking this, but...

Where do these kids get the money for microtransactions from? Thier parents allow access right? So is this protecting kids from predatory agents or is it protecting them from thier parents? I mean... its not the kids' money...

 

[GoldenX]

Because military shooters are only put out by American studios...

Average is a biiit higher there.

 

[moproblems99]

Paying 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.

Only if they couldn't possibly know beforehand if it was pay to win. If you know it is a pay to win game, and then complain because you don't want to pay to win, you are not going to get any sympathy from me.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

y'know, the government won't be intervening or "invade" the video game industry if the companies who makes games in regulating themselves to ensure no one is exploiting their customers in getting cosmetics or extra content locked behind a paywall. Now, with politicians putting their hands in this area, the publishing companies are going to get what they deserve for something they should have done 10 years ago... Will I see video games coming back to its roots where paying it once means we get the full game + missing content & play as many times as we like? maybe. Game sales would be much better too if everyone owns it wholly & not locked behind a DRM that may lock them out if the verification servers stops running.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

this 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.

 

[dirtyferret]

I think a lot of people are missing the point and using modern PC games as examples of games kids play.

Amazon, Apple, Google app stores are full of free kids games that are candy crush knock offs or unlicensed cartoon games for tablets/phones. As I parent I don't know the first thing about these games other then you need to match three icons of the dog from my kids favorite TV show to win. Seems innocent enough, helps them kill some time so I can make lunch, then you get your Amazon, Google, Apple bill.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

So, no "manipulative games". That also means no more military propaganda? Heh, no more American games then.

You can always choose not to buy any American games or even hardware.