[NEW MILLETIANS] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the
Nexon Forums Code of Conduct. You have to register before you can post, so you can log in or create a forum name above to proceed. Thank you for your visit!
Get this lootbox out of my game, Senator Hawley?
Comments
Honestly, I think this growing fear of governmental prosecution of monopolized industry is why no one wanted to bid on NXC after doing their research. It's sad to say, but I think Kim's got a lot of improvement to do, or lay it out for his company before he can completely retire.
The loot box model just isn't as liquid as it used to be, and you quite literally can't rely on one method of business for all of eternity.
This might be one of many turnoffs for appetite to bid for Nexon, but Nexon isn't the issue in this. It's lobbyists and their $ getting to politicians.
Disclaimer: This video may contain crude language unapproved by Nexon
As I said before and repost below, this is the logical aspect that the lawmakers will be looking at ways to disprove:
Meanwhile, an article 3 days ago:
Digital Minister Margot James defends loot boxes
She agreed that games companies have a responsibility to "learn from the data they're collecting" and that there are "various measures they could reasonably put in place," such as the time limits previously mentioned (although she stressed she was using this as a possibility, not advocating it). And, again, she emphasised the need for more studies.
"I would caution against the assumption that it's only the industry that should be investing in the research," James said. "As a government, we need to be satisfied that there's an independence in the research that's garnered or commissioned and I think there's a role here for public funding.
"But definitely the manufacturers should be collecting data, and in time if they are coming into scope of the online harms regulator then they will be expected to have a duty of care to their userbase. And I think most reasonable people think they do have a duty of care even with or without regulation, and that's what we'll be looking for them to demonstrate over the next 18 months before the [online harms] regulator comes into existence."
Speaking of more money trouble, Inside Gaming brings you:
Disclaimer: This video may contain crude content unapproved by Nexon
Youtuber YongYea recaps the ever growing situation:
Disclaimer: This video may contain crude language unapproved by Nexon
Meanwhile, at Sony:
Sony announce $60 real-life loot boxes for Comic-Con
Article
P.S: Loving YongYea's videos. Especially when he rants about lootboxes or any other crappy news lol.
I'll try and make an effort to include more of his videos as the situation continues over the next 18 months.
But seriously Sony... you're not helping.
I certainly hope Nexon has their UK data ready, and that it's actually scientific.
While they no longer base in the UK, they still at least provide a service within the region, and may still be liable to be called to stand.
(In accordance to the video game loot box industry line of logic.)
If I were Nexon KR and Nexon NA, I would also take EA's previous statement into account, and immediately consider researching your audience, should Uncle Sam demand the same line of statistics as loot box video game industry evidence.
(Keep in mind that this is a monopoly case as well, you will be doomed to look and owe cash like a dumbbell if you're called to the stand without evidence to support your claims.)
Don't forget about the mess they had in the music industry.
Disclaimer: This video may contain crude language unapproved by Nexon
It's rather difficult to find someone who can agree that gambling is fine, especially with the legal and age restrictions within physical casinos.
Which is why I oppose to one-sidedness on resolving issues. Usually the end result will be one of regret.
I'll have to see if anything noteworthy of counter argument pops up as I browse Youtube or Google.
But for now, the general consensus is that if the UK video game industry cannot present statistical evidence against this loot box monopoly, parliament
willcould take that as an admission of guilt, and pass restrictions or similar anti (child targeting) loot box laws to Belgium.(18 Month warning, as previously established.)
Of course, as an ongoing case, no one in the public (aside from press) has access to that data just yet.
Here's a year old video by GameSpot:
Disclaimer: This video contains crude language unapproved by Nexon
Here's some videos by Extra Credits relative to loot box arguments:
The following video may be why loot boxes seem more tempting and lucrative as opposed to a standard Cash Shop:
Meanwhile, in the Mabinogi Auction House economy:
I heard FIFA 19 has horrible "gacha". Some parents lost like... What? 500$? Because their kids gambled on this game without them noticing and apparently they still didn't get any of the rarest characters lol.
Seems like the rates are pretty similar to Mabinogi i guess. I hear people wasting like 300-500$ and getting almost nothing new.
Well FIFA is one of the most corrupt organizations in the world.
It's not so much that FIFA players endorse the loot box method, especially towards their younger fans, it's EA who designs the rates and mechanics like Nexon and other companies who do it purely for the profit. (EA who guess what, got thrown into the literal legal fire.)
More videos by Extra Credits About F2P Monetezation:
Meanwhile, back in the USA:
An article discusses reviewing the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling on video game violence, and how it might not stop loot box legislation.
The Entertainment Software Association would also rely on a First Amendment defense to combat Hawley's legislation. Loot boxes are entirely absent from the trade group's otherwise exhaustive policies page, but the First Amendment section's assertion specifies "Calls to regulate video game content, whatever the reason, infringe upon this guaranteed right."
"It was the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections that the ESA successfully invoked over a decade ago when California and a wave of other states rolled out legislation to keep violent games out of kids' hands. The fight went all the way to the Supreme Court, which in 2011 affirmed that games are indeed a protected form of free speech and tossed the California law.
Just because games are recognized as a form of protected speech under the First Amendment doesn't mean they can't be restricted by laws; it just means it's harder to restrict them. Any law looking to curb protected speech must pass a standard of strict scrutiny, which means the government has to have a compelling interest in restricting the speech and the law must achieve that interest using the least restrictive means possible."
Show your proof providing otherwise, EA, Nexon, everyone in the industry.
Your silence in court can and will be utilized against you as a sign of guilt.
While the law contradicts itself, this loot box legislation case can be changed to an industry monopoly case.
Provide statistical evidence, or risk being included in a monopoly trial.
*Proof/testimony is not emotion like the Kinder Egg argument, it must be factual, and easy to prove or disprove.
Disclaimer: This video may crude language unapproved by Nexon
So yeah, the UK did not find the literal definition of gambling to be gambling.
My mind is still dead from vacation mode, so I think I'll skip this one until we get word from the US.
As I have argued many times before:
There is no value, yet value has been advertised and expressed by both consumer and company.
So while there is no visible value, there is indeed value in each randomized item.
And as the literal definition of gambling states, as according to Wikipedia:
"Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome, with the primary intent of winning money or material goods."