Quote:
Originally Posted by soundman98
i think i need an explainer for your post...
are you talking about the loot box stuff? i vaguely remember something about the people wanting to get rid of those because of the gambling aspect. i hate loot boxes though, hated the idea since i first ran into it.
if any digital game/place is cutting into reality so much that people want to sue the creator, it's more a sign of people's level of personal accountability. and while it doesn't surprise me any more, it doesn't make it any better.
of all the things we need more of in this world, more laws, and more litigation aren't it.
that's enough internet for now, i'm going to go enjoy this nice 60 degree day and wash the cars!
|
Came back recently from a chilly afternoon drive myself!
I'm not good at making this short and simple, but this is a topic that brings in multiple subjects that involves hard science with a lot of legal shit, and much of the stuff I'm talking about isn't mutually exclusive to one side or another. I'll break it down piece by piece.
Basically: the science stated in the article (and presumably the legal foundation for this lawsuit) is incorrect and flawed. It's not terribly complex but I think it'd be best if we didn't go into it for the sake of simplicity.
I used the example of how some EU nations enacted regulations regarding gambling/lootboxes in games actually resulted in improvements for consumers. I suggested that this improvement was the result of the legislation focusing on tangible things (AKA, money and how lootboxes are essentially gambling), things easily regulated and defined. This was an example of a GOOD usage of legislation and laws.
I argued in contrast that, this lawsuit of kids and addiction is focused on something intangible and cannot easily be regulated. Even if they lose, it might give these companies free reign to continue their bad business practices due to legal precedent. It would be a BAD usage of legislation and laws.
I conceded that most games are naturally addicting and to some, CAN be a serious problem. However, the problem stems from the industry monetizing addiction (the act of buying/paying for shit in games is addicting to the people who support these games). Because it makes them so much money, they subsequently design the games around this monetization scheme which negatively impacts the game for every consumer, paying or not. Everyone loses in this regard.
Therefore, this lawsuit is focused on the wrong issues of the games industry (the symptom not the cause), using incorrect sensationalized, misinterpretted science, and would accomplish absolutely nothing or actively harm the industry and consumer base.
Ultimately IMO, behavioral stuff like this is solved with parenting 95% of the time, or with additional help from qualified people. There's no need to be chasing lawyers for this crap, and the wrong usage of science is especially egregious to me (I've done research in the past regarding this.) The industry (especially large publishers) deserve to be called out on all of these issues, but this is the wrong way.