Slashdot Mirror
The Rise of the Video-Game Gambler (newyorker.com)
Among the more insidious gifts that video games have bestowed on modern culture is the loot box. The New Yorker: A loot box is like an in-game lottery ticket: for a small fee, involving real money, a player can purchase an assortment of items that promise to enhance the game experience. Loot boxes are an appealing source of income for game developers, and they've been integral to the rise of smartphone "freemium" games, which are free to download but can't be fully enjoyed unless the player pays for in-app boosts. For pretty much everyone else, loot boxes are a scourge. Players hate that they have to pay extra just to be competitive. Parents hate discovering, too late, that several hundred dollars in Clash Royale arena packs have been charged to their credit card. And, increasingly, government regulators are thinking that loot boxes look too much like gambling -- gambling aimed at kids, no less.
Belgium and the Netherlands have banned in-game loot boxes as a form of gambling, and Minnesota recently introduced a bill that would ban the sale of games containing loot boxes to people under the age of eighteen. The concern isn't merely prudish. In a finding that will surprise virtually no one, psychologists in New Zealand have discovered that loot boxes do indeed bear troubling similarities to gambling. The researchers, led by Aaron Drummond, of Massey University, looked at twenty-two console games released between 2016 and 2017, from Overwatch and FIFA 18 to Madden N.F.L. 18 and Star Wars Battlefront II. They noted how closely the loot-box system of each game aligned with five standard psychological criteria for gambling, including whether the loot box must be bought with real money, whether it has tangible value in the game or can be cashed out, and whether its contents are randomly determined.
Belgium and the Netherlands have banned in-game loot boxes as a form of gambling, and Minnesota recently introduced a bill that would ban the sale of games containing loot boxes to people under the age of eighteen. The concern isn't merely prudish. In a finding that will surprise virtually no one, psychologists in New Zealand have discovered that loot boxes do indeed bear troubling similarities to gambling. The researchers, led by Aaron Drummond, of Massey University, looked at twenty-two console games released between 2016 and 2017, from Overwatch and FIFA 18 to Madden N.F.L. 18 and Star Wars Battlefront II. They noted how closely the loot-box system of each game aligned with five standard psychological criteria for gambling, including whether the loot box must be bought with real money, whether it has tangible value in the game or can be cashed out, and whether its contents are randomly determined.
the virtual barbie craze.. the base game is free, but people are willing to spend stupid amounts of money on skins and models..all cosmetic.
Just a decade ago, such things were scoffed at. Now we have a whole generation of retards buying into this. oh well.
That's like saying that a slot machine that takes quarters but will always spit out at least a one penny prize isn't gambling... you agree to buy the pennies for a quarter a piece, even though they aren't worth that much.
I realize this analogy breaks down in that the value of a penny vs a quarter can be objectively determined while the value of a loot box might be more subjective, but the general concept is still the same.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Make them help around the house on chores beyond what you would normally expect from them to earn money. Then it's their choice what they ultimately spend it on. You may have to hold your nose, but if you have done it right and given them real life money for the work, they will come to understand how useless those purchases are versus the work they needed to do to get that money.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I don't have kids, but have several good friends that do. Over the years I have seen the Television (with such stupidity as Barney the dinosaur etc...) being the "babysitter", something to hold the child's attention for much of the day. These days I see parents and grandparents hand the kids or grand-kids their smartphone. The kids then proceed to turn the phone to full volume and watch whatever streaming or YouTube video they want (or play whatever game) with little or no supervision. I think that all smartphones need to have a child mode, where parents can set the volume on the phone, and control at least what apps and games on the phone that the child can access. And the point about children making in-game purchases is well made! Some kids may not realize that they are spending real money on in-game purchases and others probably simply don't care as long as they can advance in the game.
A big part of the problem is that many adults do not take the time to learn and understand the full functions of the smart-phone, and the amount of information and games (much of which is NOT appropriate for children, especially young children) out there on the Internet.
I also don't believe that use of the smartphone, television, or computer to keep children occupied for more than an hour or two a day is a good thing. Children learn to interact with other children and with adults through actually , well, , interacting! Playing non-electronic games, playing outside (all under adult supervision) are important, but I see that in families that let their young children watch TV (or a smartphone or computer) all day, these important interactions with adults and other children seldom happen.