Would you settle for a $50 maximum, that could be incremented by the consumer only through a 2FA protected pro-active choice, with stepped levels?
I'm sure that's fine, I don't see any issue with that. But that isn't what the OP is proposing, he is proposing that a limit be set such that once it is reached everything is free. Which is obviously completely pointless since game makers will just put in that much value and then spin off separate episodic releases (actually they already do such things like Candy Crush Saga vs Candy Crush Soda, etc.) and completely circumvent it.
I like how you're conflating something that requires considerable planning in advance with very quick, very low friction purchases.
If you lack self control then don't put a credit card on your device and only use gift cards, in fact if you lack self control that badly you probably shouldn't have a credit card. Why do we have baby-proof everything for morons?
Human psychology is a real thing and you can't logic it away because you don't like it.
And you can't pretend it applies equally to everybody.
Note they can include "dealer may sell for less" but not more.
Rubbish, nowhere does it say that the dealer cannot sell for more.
The stock markets have lots of regulations but what regulation exactly are you thinking is akin to this scenario? I don't think there is one.
It doesn't, it was merely pointing out that there are limits on all sorts of behaviours that would allow for greater profits in other industries, all in the interest of protecting individuals from hardship/the industries themselves from imploding.
Which is why it is completely different. The casual gaming industry isn't going to implode just because every few months some idiot makes a mistake and spends a few thousand on in-game credits - which was ultimately refunded anyway.
I did read, and guess what - Microsoft Jackpot doesn't dispense "free games" - ever. It dispenses "vending merchandise or services" which affect your chances of winning, fixes one or more "wheels", credits which are used to purchase various goods in game, etc. Nice try though.
Which are all only useful in the pursuit of further games, which is why it is absolutely *not* gambling and is only a simulation and is also why it is not covered under any gambling legislation anywhere in the world. It is also why none of the slot machine simulations on devices like the iPad are covered under ambling legislation anywhere in the world.
Your inability to correctly interpret the language is why you are wrong, but I'm sure you will continue to whine that everybody else is wrong to not govern these applications under that legislation.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... Surprisingly easy to find. Microsoft Jackpot would be considered a slot machine as it produces random results per section 198 (3)(b)(ii).
Wrong! It would be if it were returning money, but it is not returning any money or even anything you can sell, just more credits which you can only use for more games. If you bothered to read what was written you would see that:
Definition of “slot machine” but does not include an automatic machine or slot machine that dispenses as prizes only one or more free games on that machine.
I thought this task would help you prove yourself wrong, but you still need to read what is written.
You're right, there's no perfect amount but there's an amount that would not shock the majority.
Which is?
Many industries do have limits though and do just fine by their shareholders - retail is limited by MSRP
Nope, the S in MSRP stands for suggested.
housing by rent controls & property valuations
Rent controls are about the amount that the rent can rise for a tenant, there is nothing to stop you setting whatever price you want for a rental or selling your house for whatever price you want. It is up to the buyer whether they will pay.
stock markets by all sorts of regulations, and so on.
The stock markets have lots of regulations but what regulation exactly are you thinking is akin to this scenario? I don't think there is one.
A movie ticket is not the same, enjoyment isn't what's on sale, you aren't even guaranteed to see the show (if you're late you can't get into some shows and won't get a refund). You are just being sold a ticket which you can exchange for access to the theatre/a seat at a predetermined time. Enjoyment is what brings you back again.
Of course it is, that is what the "free to play" model is all about, the enjoyment people get is what keeps them spending. It's not like they are investing money to then get a return on that money.
A secondary market is not what I'm talking about and you know it.
So the RMAH in WoW/Diablo for example made those games gambling?
You know I'm talking about exchanging funds for credits of some form (like you do in a casino), playing a game of chance (like slots), which comes with a reward that holds value to the person playing (like additional credits). It's gambling plain and simple...
Actually first you were ranting about free to play, now you're ranting about your misunderstanding of what gambling is.
I mean how can you argue that Microsoft Jackpot, a literal slot machine style game, is not gambling? It's idiocy.
Because it's a simulation, you cannot win money from it. It's really not that difficult to understand, but if you're right then show me which gambling legislation that game falls under. You don't have to take my word for it, your inability to do that will help you to prove yourself wrong.
Limiting hardship does not equate to affordability, it's an amount that wouldn't lead to an article on Slashdot.
So what is the amount then? I think you will find there is no single amount that can be applicable to everybody.
Limits imposed by government, by competition, by ethics, by common law, etc.
Of course businesses have these limits, but we are talking about artificially limiting their own profits, which is something they do not have and I doubt any for-profit company or shareholder of such a company would want.
Gambling does not require a cash return just something of value for the person wagering the money on it.
You probably do that every day. I already laid out an example scenario of the idiots that try to extrapolate the definition of gambling and you're still desperately trying to do it. Is it that you don't understand it or that you didn't read it? Here it is again, try and read and comprehend it this time:
"I have seen people trying to stretch the definition of gambling to suit their agenda like this before, commonly on things like movie tickets, it's a gamble as you have paid for a ticket with no concrete assurance that you will be entertained by what you paid for."
Also there are games which have that random factor where the goods won can be sold for cash, the same way a lottery for a house as an example can be turned into cash.
Of course there are, that goes back even to the old days of Ultima Online, Diablo, etc... but that's not really anything to do with the "free to play" model. You seem very confused as to what you're upset about here. Is it still the "free to play" model or is it now being able to sell in-game digital goods for cash?
What limit are you talking about? Quite clearly we are discussing placing an artificial limit on the profits of games, and no, every business does not have this...in fact i don't think any do.
In none of those you listed is there a wagering of cash for a return of cash. I have seen people trying to stretch the definition of gambling to suit their agenda like this before, commonly on things like movie tickets, it's a gamble as you have paid for a ticket with no concrete assurance that you will be entertained by what you paid for. But no, we can see they are absolutely not the same thing.
Obviously for their business it is in their interest to have no limit, and like I said, not everybody finds the same amount to be affordable. So saying there should be some arbitrary affordable limit is obviously not a solution.
"such that $X limits any hardship on any one individual. Possible values for X is a quite a massive range, not everybody finds the same amount to be affordable."
The change I would propose is a limit on profit taking whereby users could spend as much or as little as they wanted but the providers like Steam or XBL would limit the amount that any one user could be charged overall for a single game. ie: charges up to $X per game will be charged beyond that the game is considered to be paid for in full. This would limit any hardship on any one individual
Who defines what $X is such that $X limits any hardship on any one individual. Possible values for X is a quite a massive range, not everybody finds the same amount to be affordable.
You're not being taken advantage of though, you're presumably a reasonable person paying the market rate which is based on a reasonable business model & profit margins.
So what defines a "reasonable person" and "reasonable business model & profit margins"? I'm sure plenty of reasonable people make in-app purchases and plenty of people see it as justifiable for their enjoyment, that's up to them. Why would you care if you somebody wants to pay money to level-skip in bejewelled?
You'd be screaming holy hell if prices jumped from $300/jump to $5,000 per jump, you couldn't use your own equipment and it cost more than you could buy it for to rent every piece of equipment you needed each time, etc.
Right, if I found the charges to be unreasonable I wouldn't be paying them.
These kind of abuses hurt the industry as a whole, just like all skydiving shops did the above, far fewer people would actually be able to do it and the industry dies a slow painful death.
Yes, it is self-regulating. If some company has a game that offers a BFG for $1000 then obviously it's not going to be much fun for the 99.9% of people unable or unwilling to pay for it to play against those few who do.
If you read any of the other comments you'd know that's not the case.
What's not the case? I'm asking what your point is (is it either of the things I said?), are you just whining about society or are you proposing change?
I spend thousands of dollars jumping out of planes, you could certainly say I'm addicted to it and it is a massive expense. But fuck you if you think you can go on some campaign to stop me just because you don't think it's a wise expenditure and you think I'm being taken advantage of.
The elephant in the room is that we, as a society, are allowing these games to exist at all.
So are you saying you want to educate people and allow them to make their own informed decisions or to forcibly tell them what they do and do not want? I don't think we need more of a nanny state.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you settle for a $50 maximum, that could be incremented by the consumer only through a 2FA protected pro-active choice, with stepped levels?
I'm sure that's fine, I don't see any issue with that. But that isn't what the OP is proposing, he is proposing that a limit be set such that once it is reached everything is free. Which is obviously completely pointless since game makers will just put in that much value and then spin off separate episodic releases (actually they already do such things like Candy Crush Saga vs Candy Crush Soda, etc.) and completely circumvent it.
I think your suggestion is perfectly acceptable.
I like how you're conflating something that requires considerable planning in advance with very quick, very low friction purchases.
If you lack self control then don't put a credit card on your device and only use gift cards, in fact if you lack self control that badly you probably shouldn't have a credit card. Why do we have baby-proof everything for morons?
Human psychology is a real thing and you can't logic it away because you don't like it.
And you can't pretend it applies equally to everybody.
Note they can include "dealer may sell for less" but not more.
Rubbish, nowhere does it say that the dealer cannot sell for more.
The stock markets have lots of regulations but what regulation exactly are you thinking is akin to this scenario? I don't think there is one.
It doesn't, it was merely pointing out that there are limits on all sorts of behaviours that would allow for greater profits in other industries, all in the interest of protecting individuals from hardship/the industries themselves from imploding.
Which is why it is completely different. The casual gaming industry isn't going to implode just because every few months some idiot makes a mistake and spends a few thousand on in-game credits - which was ultimately refunded anyway.
I did read, and guess what - Microsoft Jackpot doesn't dispense "free games" - ever. It dispenses "vending merchandise or services" which affect your chances of winning, fixes one or more "wheels", credits which are used to purchase various goods in game, etc. Nice try though.
Which are all only useful in the pursuit of further games, which is why it is absolutely *not* gambling and is only a simulation and is also why it is not covered under any gambling legislation anywhere in the world. It is also why none of the slot machine simulations on devices like the iPad are covered under ambling legislation anywhere in the world.
Your inability to correctly interpret the language is why you are wrong, but I'm sure you will continue to whine that everybody else is wrong to not govern these applications under that legislation.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... Surprisingly easy to find. Microsoft Jackpot would be considered a slot machine as it produces random results per section 198 (3)(b)(ii).
Wrong! It would be if it were returning money, but it is not returning any money or even anything you can sell, just more credits which you can only use for more games. If you bothered to read what was written you would see that:
Definition of “slot machine”
but does not include an automatic machine or slot machine that dispenses as prizes only one or more free games on that machine.
I thought this task would help you prove yourself wrong, but you still need to read what is written.
You're right, there's no perfect amount but there's an amount that would not shock the majority.
Which is?
Many industries do have limits though and do just fine by their shareholders - retail is limited by MSRP
Nope, the S in MSRP stands for suggested.
housing by rent controls & property valuations
Rent controls are about the amount that the rent can rise for a tenant, there is nothing to stop you setting whatever price you want for a rental or selling your house for whatever price you want. It is up to the buyer whether they will pay.
stock markets by all sorts of regulations, and so on.
The stock markets have lots of regulations but what regulation exactly are you thinking is akin to this scenario? I don't think there is one.
A movie ticket is not the same, enjoyment isn't what's on sale, you aren't even guaranteed to see the show (if you're late you can't get into some shows and won't get a refund). You are just being sold a ticket which you can exchange for access to the theatre/a seat at a predetermined time. Enjoyment is what brings you back again.
Of course it is, that is what the "free to play" model is all about, the enjoyment people get is what keeps them spending. It's not like they are investing money to then get a return on that money.
A secondary market is not what I'm talking about and you know it.
So the RMAH in WoW/Diablo for example made those games gambling?
You know I'm talking about exchanging funds for credits of some form (like you do in a casino), playing a game of chance (like slots), which comes with a reward that holds value to the person playing (like additional credits). It's gambling plain and simple...
Actually first you were ranting about free to play, now you're ranting about your misunderstanding of what gambling is.
I mean how can you argue that Microsoft Jackpot, a literal slot machine style game, is not gambling? It's idiocy.
Because it's a simulation, you cannot win money from it. It's really not that difficult to understand, but if you're right then show me which gambling legislation that game falls under. You don't have to take my word for it, your inability to do that will help you to prove yourself wrong.
Limiting hardship does not equate to affordability, it's an amount that wouldn't lead to an article on Slashdot.
So what is the amount then? I think you will find there is no single amount that can be applicable to everybody.
Limits imposed by government, by competition, by ethics, by common law, etc.
Of course businesses have these limits, but we are talking about artificially limiting their own profits, which is something they do not have and I doubt any for-profit company or shareholder of such a company would want.
Gambling does not require a cash return just something of value for the person wagering the money on it.
You probably do that every day. I already laid out an example scenario of the idiots that try to extrapolate the definition of gambling and you're still desperately trying to do it. Is it that you don't understand it or that you didn't read it? Here it is again, try and read and comprehend it this time:
"I have seen people trying to stretch the definition of gambling to suit their agenda like this before, commonly on things like movie tickets, it's a gamble as you have paid for a ticket with no concrete assurance that you will be entertained by what you paid for."
Also there are games which have that random factor where the goods won can be sold for cash, the same way a lottery for a house as an example can be turned into cash.
Of course there are, that goes back even to the old days of Ultima Online, Diablo, etc... but that's not really anything to do with the "free to play" model. You seem very confused as to what you're upset about here. Is it still the "free to play" model or is it now being able to sell in-game digital goods for cash?
Where did 'affordability' come in?
Well what did you mean by "limit any hardship on any one individual" if you aren't talking about affordability?
And every business has limits.
What limit are you talking about? Quite clearly we are discussing placing an artificial limit on the profits of games, and no, every business does not have this...in fact i don't think any do.
Isn't it in many cases?
In none of those you listed is there a wagering of cash for a return of cash. I have seen people trying to stretch the definition of gambling to suit their agenda like this before, commonly on things like movie tickets, it's a gamble as you have paid for a ticket with no concrete assurance that you will be entertained by what you paid for. But no, we can see they are absolutely not the same thing.
I have also never seen the self-regulating scenario you specified "that just means that 99.9% of players will be dissatisfied with the product, lose interest and move on to other hobbies" in any gambling situation.
Obviously for their business it is in their interest to have no limit, and like I said, not everybody finds the same amount to be affordable. So saying there should be some arbitrary affordable limit is obviously not a solution.
"such that $X limits any hardship on any one individual. Possible values for X is a quite a massive range, not everybody finds the same amount to be affordable."
Yes, like gambling is "self-regulating"
No, this is not wagering. That is something very different.
That just means that 99.9% of players will be dissatisfied with the product, lose interest and move on to other hobbies.
Exactly, like I said it is self-regulating.
The change I would propose is a limit on profit taking whereby users could spend as much or as little as they wanted but the providers like Steam or XBL would limit the amount that any one user could be charged overall for a single game. ie: charges up to $X per game will be charged beyond that the game is considered to be paid for in full. This would limit any hardship on any one individual
Who defines what $X is such that $X limits any hardship on any one individual. Possible values for X is a quite a massive range, not everybody finds the same amount to be affordable.
So if my spending is unlimited by the profit taking is limited then where does it all go?
It never leaves your pocket.
That obviously does not follow.
You hit the maximum for a particular game, the in-app purchases become free - what's hard to follow about that?
Well then yes you're obviously not "spending" anymore then.
So if my spending is unlimited by the profit taking is limited then where does it all go?
It never leaves your pocket.
That obviously does not follow.
So if my spending is unlimited by the profit taking is limited then where does it all go?
You're not being taken advantage of though, you're presumably a reasonable person paying the market rate which is based on a reasonable business model & profit margins.
So what defines a "reasonable person" and "reasonable business model & profit margins"? I'm sure plenty of reasonable people make in-app purchases and plenty of people see it as justifiable for their enjoyment, that's up to them. Why would you care if you somebody wants to pay money to level-skip in bejewelled?
You'd be screaming holy hell if prices jumped from $300/jump to $5,000 per jump, you couldn't use your own equipment and it cost more than you could buy it for to rent every piece of equipment you needed each time, etc.
Right, if I found the charges to be unreasonable I wouldn't be paying them.
These kind of abuses hurt the industry as a whole, just like all skydiving shops did the above, far fewer people would actually be able to do it and the industry dies a slow painful death.
Yes, it is self-regulating. If some company has a game that offers a BFG for $1000 then obviously it's not going to be much fun for the 99.9% of people unable or unwilling to pay for it to play against those few who do.
If you read any of the other comments you'd know that's not the case.
What's not the case? I'm asking what your point is (is it either of the things I said?), are you just whining about society or are you proposing change?
but that does not make it platform independent.
Which is why he said cross-platform rather than "platform independent". There are many platforms that you can install a server for nodejs on.
We still have an insecure virtual machine facing the internet whenever the browser makes a request.
Plenty of them are open source, if you find vulnerabilities get to fixing it or fund fixes to it.
I spend thousands of dollars jumping out of planes, you could certainly say I'm addicted to it and it is a massive expense. But fuck you if you think you can go on some campaign to stop me just because you don't think it's a wise expenditure and you think I'm being taken advantage of.
The elephant in the room is that we, as a society, are allowing these games to exist at all.
So are you saying you want to educate people and allow them to make their own informed decisions or to forcibly tell them what they do and do not want? I don't think we need more of a nanny state.