this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
218 points (95.0% liked)

Games

16796 readers
850 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Nah, it just encourages them to find clever ways around it. Or just pay the fines as a cost of doing business.

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Is it your view then that all laws are useless?

Or just pay the fines as a cost of doing business.

What if the fine was... one billion dollars.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, that's quite the extreme opposite end of the spectrum.

I just think that, in general, we should refrain from making laws unless it's to protect victims. I don't think, in general, people choosing to waste money on stupid games qualifies as being a victim, you can't victimize yourself. However, changing the terms after the sale certainly qualifies as a bait and switch, and should be illegal and strictly prosecuted.

If we just make laws for every problem we see, we'll get incredibly inconsistent enforcement. If we have a narrower set of laws, we should see more effective enforcement. That's where I'm coming from. Save the legislation for truly important things and follow up on enforcement.

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's where I'm coming from. Save the legislation for truly important things

I don't disagree, but I feel you're kind of assuming everyone is capable of rationally engaging with these stupid games. It's the irrational ones I worry about. Loot boxes and gambling addicts, for instance.

That said, though, the validity of blaming companies for the bad decisions they make knowing they'll catch so many fish in their net is all I'm really here for. I've no idea how I'd "regulate early access" or if that's even worth doing.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If someone is looking for an addiction, they'll find it, whether it's mobile games, live service PC/console games, or actual online gambling. Banning addictions isn't going to work, the people making these things will just innovate around whatever the regulations are. Gambling is illegal in my area, yet people find all kinds of creative ways to get their fix.

The solution isn't to ban addicting things, but to teach people to avoid them. This is a behavioral problem, not a legal problem.

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

the people making these things will just innovate around whatever the regulations are

This is why I asked if you think laws are useless.

And yeah, casinos and whatever will skirt the laws (if they're able), but the point of regulating a practice is to keep things from getting out of hand.

Predatory gambling games are basically just fancy theft. You create games that are unwinnable, and then you goad suckers into taking the bet. It's regulations that keep a lot of them even marginally fair.

This is a behavioral problem,

And what of the business' behavior? Should we not teach them to be better?

It's regulations that keep a lot of them even marginally fair.

Sure, but those regulations aren't about the addictiveness or whatever, they're about transparency. If the odds of the game aren't clear or accurate, they can get into a lot of trouble.

Businesses are motivated by profit, so they'll do whatever they think will make them the most money. Getting businesses to behave requires making "bad" behaviors less profitable than "good" behaviors, and that's an endless game of whack-a-mole, especially when a lot of laws just aren't enforced consistently enough to matter, or the fines are lobbied down to relevance.

People are often motivated by pleasure, and replacing one from of pleasure (predatory games) with another is quite feasible, especially if you can point out how to find less predatory games. Making regulations to help this be transparent is a lot easier than making them go away.

So no, we shouldn't try to teach businesses anything because they don't learn. We should instead force them to be transparent and teach people to interpret that.