AquaEyes

dear god please.

gimme a pet whistle bag or some type of temporary (1yr+ pls) storage like the bag that holds bingo/point things or the ability to throw pet whistles in pets.

p l e a s e.

sincerely,
someone who has almost an entire 121 space bag filled with pet whistles.

Kensamaofmari wrote: »

A matter of time before the entire gaming industry heads towards collapse.

It's not just the gaming industry though. While lootbox regulation are the ones we're currently talking about, and are first and foremost use by the gaming industry, it's what starts the tides shifting for bigger areas. The internet has been a literal grey area for years--no real official regulations were put in place and held up for things like monopolies or data-mining. With the approval of an anti-lootbox act, it's a step closer to other tech areas being regulated and held to laws. It would be a step towards de-monopolizing Google (who both rules search engines and email providers), a step towards breaking down one-stop areas Amazon who have little to no other competition, a step towards breaking down Disney (who is partnered with ABC, ESPN, Marvel, Fox, and Lucasfilms-- together they make one of the largest media powerhouses producing content).

Working towards regulating the lootboxes actively puts effort into monitoring business practices of companies that's revenue comes from the internet. Which is a step closer to enacting irl laws like the Sherman Antitrust Act and holding large internet or media-based businesses to them. A step closer to the internet being a fairer and privater place of fun/business/recreation/whatever for consumers.

(and then mayyyybe a step closer into working on the US's current economic issues, but lets not dream too big now)

Kensamaofmari wrote: »

It's not just as simple as adapt. A business will operate until profitability disappears and then they will probably exit the market and leave it to the strong and few, the 1%. Is Nexon part of that 1%? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Regardless, market diversity will be killed off if regulations choke off the life to most of the involved businesses so that a few will benefit.

Now, I'm not saying regulation is not needed, it is, but depending on the exact type of regulation could be detrimental.

Unfortunately, this is something that is already happening in so many parts of the internet. The diversity the everyday consumer has in areas like search engines, email providers, social media sites/apps has dwindled. There are a handful of names that people actively use for each of these things-- only a small few of the that handful are '1%' businesses.

It reminds me of the Netflix/Hulu/Amazon war in its prime. We had three huge things to choose from-- they each had different, but still good, content. Most enjoyed at least one, some enjoyed all. But now, there's been a huge spike in streaming: we have areas like Crackle and SlingTV and YouTube who have been established for a few years, and then we have AppleTV and Disney+ and plenty of 'ala carte' options for certain stations. The market for streaming is bigger than ever-- but it's also more tedious than ever. No one wants to pay six different bills for the same type of content. And since these are competing businesses you can't pick and choose what you get from them. In a lot of ways, adapting to the 'streaming generation' really hurts the consumer-- because the consumer originally turned to streaming to avoid high prices, commercials, and an overload of things they didn't want to watch.

idk in what ways barring lootboxes could/would hurt consumers- but I'm sure there is one. It's a fine line to walk between consumer happiness and ethical business practices.

ookie wrote: »

how about everyone gets a 20 x 20 bag that holds.....bags

ngl. that's my fave thing. a bag to hold my bags. it needs to be a 1x1 space in my inv and have the ability to have more than one. so my entire inv is filled with bags filled with bags.

Honestly, Sen. Josh Hawley doesn't have my support on a lot of other measures he wants to put into place, but his work in big tech (with regulating gambling/loot boxes, working to break up monopolies like Facebook and Google, advocating for stricter data privacy, working to lessen the bias that social media workers have towards conservativism and trying to fight against subsequent censorship [i.e. Facebook had censored a conservative pro-life organization after it's "independent fact checkers" provided the group with a false rating; something that led to the subsequent censorship and removal of the organization. The independent fact checkers were, in fact, abortion rights activists-- so they were unbiased in their "fact checking" ]--and therefore, advocating on behalf of free speech) is pretty great.

NGL, I'm so glad that he's been able to get the ball rolling to get lootboxes out of games. A majority of Americans use unhealthy ways of coping with their thoughts and emotions; whether its through food or shopping or whatever, addiction is just a reinforced coping skill. And now that shopping can be done with one click through a phone, the number of addicted shoppers has ramped up. I'm sure we all know someone who has an Amazon Prime account and mindlessly one-click buys things. And while loot boxes aren't the exact same as that, they are incredibly similar. We spend money on gacha/loot to maybe get something cool... and then if we don't get it, we feel bad and spend a bit more to try again.

It's funny to joke about 'whales' who spend hundreds of dollars per gacha release, but its increasingly common as gaming presents itself to a younger generation. We don't joke laugh when we see someone blow huge amounts of money at the casino then come back the next week to do it again. So, why should we when we see people do the same on their phones/games/computers? Why haven't we set up ways for these people to seek help--we already have for irl gambling, so why not for virtual gambling?