Nope some elements of the COOPA too plays a role in this go read back the bill ...
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Polygon: Anti-loot box bill gathers bipartisan support in Senate
- Thread starter Sectorseven
- Start date
"Laws against anything harmful are dumb because it's always the victims fault and they should get help"
"Whatever happens you better not make the games I enjoy less enjoyable by preventing others from being exploited"
You're rightfully being dunked on all over this thread but this has to be one of the worst takes I've ever seen on Era
Thank god you have no power or influence in this situation
Cool story, ignore the structure of the marketing and products being sold in favour of blaming "poor" individual choices, it's worked so well in light of the obesity epidemic. Just do more exercise keep drinking coke.
Hey bad parenting, ignore the addictive nature of loot boxes in video games marketed towards and populated by children.
Poor hygiene issues all a issue with the dirty poors, ignoring the much higher health benefits to merely implementing city wide sewer systems and running water.
COPPA just says child oriented sites can't collect data without permission from a parent, and the sites you're talking aren't exactly child oriented, which I only bring up for an example of how the government determines what's child-oriented, like Herseys and Girl Scouts. I have no clue what that has to do with what you're describing.
Maybe you're thinking about COPA, which tried to basically ban all things sex from the internet and was struck down by the courts 20 years ago? Yeah, that one sucked too. But I'm pretty positive the tumbler thing you mention is directly Sesta/Fosta related.
Last edited:
Well, I hope the government certainly saves our children then.
Honestly, if you want to save our kids from addiction, this doesn't go far enough. I'm still not convinced lootboxes are a gateway into gambling, which seems to be the argument for this bill. I am, however, convinced that the modern F2P system is in and of itself addictive by design, and this is true even if someone doesn't spend a dime. If you want to talk about increasing Dopamine levels when "winning" a loot box, we should also talk about how games manipulate that during level progression or other milestones.
If you want to talk about the dangers of kids spending all their money, then cut off the money. If you want to talk about general addiction, something as seemingly innocuous as Minecraft or Roblox (which have decent creative virtues) can be addictive and kids can spend a ton of money as well, even if it's not randomized. A game like Marvel Future Fight is almost a job at this point doing just the daily tasks.
Legislation isn't going to keep up with this and I don't see a problem with expecting some level of parental responsibility here.
Legislation can include better labelling, which is a tool parents can use to be more proactive.
Regulation also lead to information campaigns and higher awareness on the customer side, as it brings the subject on the political scene.
Pressure for self-regulation can lead to some changes, like I heard people suggesting that Platform holders disable prepaid platform-specific cards for Lootboxes or put age restrictions on them (currently prepaid cards don't require an adult), putting spending limits (can be age-based), show the exact drop rates...
About parental responsibility on spending:
There is also currently no in-between solution for Parents to manage Kids spending without being present all the time:
either they give access to their credit card, or they must do the transaction themselves. There's no standard "spending limit", or "kid mode" that doesn't just lock all purchases outright. I don't even think an "ask your parent before spending" preventive message to the child itself is industry standard currently (if you are talking self-control).
People act like requiring a credit card solves the responsibility problem, but you can imagine why a parent would trust their kid's generation to "do the payment online" if they are less capable with technology or if they are not using the Console/Smart device themselves, and expect kid barriers on that side. There is no easy solution or service for this kind of budgeting on the market as far as I know. (But I'm no expert.)
You can setup a paypal and only feed it what you allow your kid to spend... but most people would give up at the word "setup" if it's not fully automated on the Platform's side.
Even if legislation doesn't keep up with the changing times, the industry's standards at least should?
Last edited:
Well I'm glad you're not part of the process of regulation or serving society through public service, preferring to allow predatory practices as it's all to hard to keep up.
No, I just realize that I don't need to quote the entirety of a post to respond to a part of it. Do try and keep up. He was in clear opposition to DLC; plain as day to see. I noted this was silly. Sorry again for you missing the obvious, but sure, you can keep up with the nonsense "secret meaning" argument if you want. Someone who purports to be in the "burn it all down" stage with regards to that being his preferred way of addressing DLC is totally in support of it. Mhmm hmm.
Nope, no misquoting at all. Merely responding to a portion of the post; a portion which was emblematic of one of the points being made, namely, that the person was opposed to DLC. Pretty easy to keep track off.
Go ahead. Go ahead and quote the full initial quote and try to lie, saying the person wasn't in opposition to DLC as one of the points being made in the post.
Frankly, this continues to astound. It was tremendously obvious to see that the person was opposed to DLC. My mind is boggled as to how it could be interpreted some other way, yet when this is responded to with a completely non-controversial statement like "I disagree; I think DLC is good", people fly off the rails. Apparently I should have quoted it word for word and said "No I disagree" with literally every single sentence fragment. I wonder how that would have been misconstrued.
Last edited:
Jakisthe I think you're reading too much into the post that started this conversation. Regardless, there wasn't a need to drag up a days-old argument, so I'd appreciate it if you, Weltall Zero and Sacul64 all move on from this line of discussion. Thanks.
That's incorrect about how spending works, at least on PSN and probably on Live and Switch which I assume are similar. On PSN, if the child has a child profile then the default wallet spending is $0.00. It's impossible for the child to add funds to the wallet in any way, and it's the master account, i.e. the parent, which can set monthly spending limits from the PSN wallet. If the child spends it comes from that parental defined limit, and it never triggers the parents credit/debit card, and the parent gets notifications of all spending.
If the child has a full adult profile, that's against the ToS, so hello parental responsibility, and then there's the issue that the kid can't have a credit card or PayPal, so they'll need cash to purchase PSN cards in retail stores. If they can do all that, again hello parental responsibility.
How about before we support hamfisted Govt involvement we first establish whether there's an actual problem? I mean something more rigorous than some vocal internet people saying they don't like a thing. It's telling, don't you agree, the lack of anecdotes in threads like this about kids blowing tons of money on lootboxes? Probably because it's not a big problem, and the "save the children" argument is a weak one.
A couple of side effects of that law, if I'm reading it right, are that the revenue source to fund years of free GTAV updates for everyone would be illegal. Also you can currently get up to 35% more V-bucks in Fortnite if buying in bulk, and those savings would be illegal. Those aren't positive changes.
Last edited:
I'm sure lootboxes and p2w mechanisms are done for the good of video game consumers for sure.
The bill still has a long way to go and can be refined along the way but if it didnt exist and actions like it didnt take place, unchecked capitalistic exploitation is allowed to take hold of the industry and I'd rather not have that.
Or that you exploit your consumers. Heroin is a great experience. That doesn't mean it's good for you, or that the drug dealer is not exploiting you and being "anti-consumer".
anti-consumer
adjective
an·ti-con·sum·er | \ ˌan-tē-kən-ˈsü-mər , ˌan-tī-\
Definition of anti-consumer
: not favorable to consumers : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers
So yes this perfectly sums up loot boxes.
Again, I love your wild west "do whatever the hell you want" attitude. It's the one that has, throughout history, been shown to be a problem. Tobacco. Big oil/coal. Sugar industry. Banks. etc etc
How many people would rather pay, on average, more to get the same things just because they get an endorphin rush from gambling? That is your argument of a "better" experience here.
It's funny watching someone paint themselves into a corner when they claim lootboxes are good and the only thing they can say that is good about them, other than exploiting people, is that the give people "excitement" and "surprise" (aka gambling rush). Yes, they give people a gambling rush. That is kind of the problem with them.
If you're making the "they make games better" argument, why aren't the best games filled with them? If they enhance the experience why are all the best reviewed games not loaded with them? Why is it the opposite?
Sorry but citation very badly needed on the "they enhance the gaming experience" argument. Most games with them would absolutely be better without them.
Nobody is complaining that the expect to win and don't, and therefore don't like lootboxes. Stop strawmanning.
I'm in favor of banning loot boxes and regulating MTX, but it's important to point out the problems in legislation, this entire bill is flawed to the point of being unhelpful.
Look at how much of this thread is discussing children, because that'st he main point being made in this bill. Not only does bringing up children deflect from the issue at hand (exploitation) but it also in a way makes it seem like its ok to exploit gambling addiction in adults, and last but certainly not least, we already have mechanisms in place to prevent children from purchasing anything from these digital store fronts, Not a single developer, publisher, platform holder, or retailer is advocating that children should be buying MTX.
Destructoid did an article speculating on the effect this bill and other moves to kill loot boxes will have on the mobile market.
It's pretty straightforward, really - the main options are 1) pull out of the US market (viable for smaller games whose main playerbase is in Asia but not acceptable for big titles that have sunk their teeth into the US market), 2) make the games adults-only (generally not acceptable outside of those porn games you see being advertised on occasion) and 3) replace the loot box/gacha mechanics with something fairer and more legal.
I'm basically hoping a lot of games pick the last option. Honestly, going scorched-earth on a fuckton of typical mobile game practices is probably for the best and may actually realign the mobile market towards games that monetize through expansions or cosmetic stuff, or free-to-start stuff like Super Mario Run. Mobile gamers will lose their shit over having to pay for actual gameplay content more rather than getting everything for 'free' (just look at the reaction to Monument Valley's expansion pack, where mobile games lost their fucking minds over a $2 expansion), but eh, I have no sympathy for them.
Also, I imagine an global shift towards the demise of the loot box is inevitable anyway - if this bill passes in the US, how long will it take for the EU or Japan to follow suit? Such practices are already under heavy scrutiny in various countries as it is thanks to EA's bungling of Battlefront 2.
It's pretty straightforward, really - the main options are 1) pull out of the US market (viable for smaller games whose main playerbase is in Asia but not acceptable for big titles that have sunk their teeth into the US market), 2) make the games adults-only (generally not acceptable outside of those porn games you see being advertised on occasion) and 3) replace the loot box/gacha mechanics with something fairer and more legal.
I'm basically hoping a lot of games pick the last option. Honestly, going scorched-earth on a fuckton of typical mobile game practices is probably for the best and may actually realign the mobile market towards games that monetize through expansions or cosmetic stuff, or free-to-start stuff like Super Mario Run. Mobile gamers will lose their shit over having to pay for actual gameplay content more rather than getting everything for 'free' (just look at the reaction to Monument Valley's expansion pack, where mobile games lost their fucking minds over a $2 expansion), but eh, I have no sympathy for them.
Also, I imagine an global shift towards the demise of the loot box is inevitable anyway - if this bill passes in the US, how long will it take for the EU or Japan to follow suit? Such practices are already under heavy scrutiny in various countries as it is thanks to EA's bungling of Battlefront 2.
Couldn't they just age gate the games to anyone below the age of 18. Basically do what porn sites do nowadays where all you need to do is imput your birthday, and nothing more. I doubt a rating would become a mandatory thing for games to be in the play store.
From the bill:
"It is unlawful for a game publisher to publish an interactive digital entertainment product that is not a minor-oriented game (or an update to such a product) if [...] the publisher has constructive knowledge that any of its users are under the age of 18."
I don't think your suggestion would pass the "constructive knowledge" bar. In the UK from July 15th you'll have to prove you're an adult to access a porn site, which means attaching a credit card or similar (i.e. submitting your identity) or buying a "porn pass" from a shop.
Huh, so the bill actually talks about game rating. An interesting thing to known, as most mobile games don't have ratings.
I hope for option 3 too. I imagine it wouldn't be 'that hard' to implement, insofar as most games' core gameplay wouldn't be effected. If non-random MTX are still ok, just release the same content for a specific price. They could even offer tiered service, such as a subscription tier where an annual fee unlocks everything, a free tier where everything costs money, a 'full game pass' that for a hefty sum you get everything forever, or a 'donation' tier where if you give money to the developers for upkeep you get a discount on MTX for a set time.
Also, don't expect the big gacha games to pull out, as data shows that a big portion of the game's audience to be adults. They will get the A-rating if possible, but now the question becomes if stores will even allow the A-rating. Take FGO, 75% of the playerbase are over the age 19.
Also, don't expect the big gacha games to pull out, as data shows that a big portion of the game's audience to be adults. They will get the A-rating if possible, but now the question becomes if stores will even allow the A-rating. Take FGO, 75% of the playerbase are over the age 19.
Japanese, Chinenese and asian mobile games be it gacha or not will probably just shut down and only be distributed on Asia if this bill pass. Or in countries in the west without such laws.
I know for sure companies won't change the game's data to suit a specific region, especially in the case with FGO where they have mention how much of a complication it is to change old data, but is an A-rating really that much of a death sentence for them, even if allowed to still stay in stores. I would've suspected that the money brought in would still be enough to still continue the service.
And that's why there should simply be a blanket ban on these things instead of merely a ban on selling/marketing them to minors. Trying to restrict access to these products by age is difficult to do and the few measures that might actually be effective are impractical and overzealous. Not to mention that the general concept of restricting access to art, cultural goods, entertainment media, etc. based on your legal age is somewhat misguided. It's best to view age ratings as rough guidelines for parents and legal guardians but leave the final decision up to them. At the end of the day, people grow up at different rates and some may be ready for certain types of content before others.
If that's that's the angle you want to use then that's a sale of goods and you got your money's worth. So still not gambling.
Link to these plenty of studies comparing the psychological effects of trading cards vs. lootboxes. I've personally spent many thousands of dollars on sports cards and lootboxes are not as addictive because the items aren't worth anything. IMO, the only type of controls lootboxes need are:
1. Published odds
2. Limit on how many you can buy in a particular time frame for anyone under 18
3. A mechanism similar to sports cards in which you are guaranteed rares. For example sports cards guarantee x number of tier 1 rares if you buy a box and x number of tier 2 rares if you buy a case etc.
Why should there be a Govt mandated ban on something that hasn't even been proven to be a problem? Never mind the "save the children" stuff which seems like a trojan horse, it hasn't even been shown to be a problem for adults and only one small country in the world calls some of this stuff illegal (Belgium), which is actually a new interpretation of an older law and if it was a bigger region would likely be challenged in court. If you don't want a game that supports it you can always buy one of the hundreds of others that don't.
That may be true for you but I think it's rather foolish to assume that it will hold true for everyone else.
Well, let's look at how lootboxes and the games they tend to inhabit actually function and how devs and publishers make money with them.
First off, you need a game that's engaging enough for people to want to play it, then you need to foster some kind of demand in your playerbase for additional content, be it weapons, cosmetic items, taunts, perks/boosts, what-have-you. You could simply sell this content to players directly, that way people could buy what they want and only what they want while being able to easily take stock of how much they actually spent on any one item. That would be a fair, honest way of selling this content. However, you can make much more money peddling the same content if you sell them in lootboxes. People still know the kinds of items they want but they can no longer choose what items they get. This doesn't just mean that, if you're deadset on getting a certain item, you probably need to spend way more money than before (because you'll likely have to buy many lootboxes to get one that has that specific item), it also means that there's no way for you to know how much money you'll have to spend.
The great thing about the lootbox system is how opaque it is. Publishers can make items as rare or common as they please without actually sharing that information with their customers. And now, at this point in the argumentative chain, there may still be a counterargument to be made that nobody forces you to actually touch the lootboxes in a game that has them and that, if you're a responsible person who's got a few good brain cells left, you can simply choose not to engage with them. What this argument ignores is that any game that has lootboxes has them because its creators want to sell them and, because it's such a closed, opaque ecosystem, those same creators who want to sell you their lootboxes also have full control over the factors that create demand for those lootboxes and the items in them. Not only that, they can design their games in ways that actively funnel you towards lootboxes, be it by giving you free ones as part of the regular gameplay loop, or locked ones that you have to pay extra to open, forcing you to visit the same menu screens that entail the option to buy lootboxes as part of the regular gameplay loop, etc. They can even manipulate what happens in your game to try and push you towards a lootbox purchase. For example, they can pair you up players who've already spent loads of money on lootboxes and have loads of fancy items with new players who haven't spent a cent and who may be manipulated into wanting those cool items. They may tinker with your stats behind the scenes to make you feel like you need that little bit of extra oomph, they may make it more likely for you to get into a certain situations that may be made easier with certain items or perks you can find in lootboxes, etc. They have stats and data from millions of players. They can analyse when someone bought a lootbox, what their previous experience in the game had been like, what may have motivated them to make the purchase. They can analyse if there are patterns in how people who tend to spend more money on lootboxes play the game, whether different types of players may need different incentives to buy lootboxes and what they are, etc.
And, of course, the manipulation does not stop with the lootbox purchase. Most games have carefully crafted animations and effects that are supposed to make opening a lootbox feel special. The whole experience of purchasing and opening a lootbox tends to be designed in an inherently manipulative way that's meant to invoke certain emotions in you, make you feel like you only just missed out on the item you wanted, like you want to open another one, etc. The whole system is designed to be manipulative, dishonest and addictive. Not addictive to everyone, no, because not everyone is equally susceptible to this kind of stuff but those who are susceptible to it are susceptible not because they are stupid or because they have more money than they know what to do with but because they may have an addictive personality or because the game caught them in a low moment when they were vulnerable, their defences were down and the positive feedback loop of buying and opening lootboxes gave them a dopamine rush.
The entire point of lootboxes is that they offer the potential to confuse and manipulate a player into spending more money than they otherwise would have and they do this in a way that is inherently deceitful and dishonest in an ecosystem that has been specifically designed to make you want to buy them by means of psychological manipulation and deception. How is that not a problem?
I did read all of that. It doesn't rise to the level of "needs Govt involvement to ban it". Likewise, the justification for that bill talked about here is lacking too. To your last paragraph, one of the anecdotes posted often and also in this very thread, is the guy who spent £10K on FIFA. He admitted to enjoying the game every day and having a good disposable income so it wasn't a big problem, but acknowledges there are better ways to spend that money. Again, doesn't rise to the necessary justification for a Govt ban.
There is a lot of parent shaming in this thread. Speaking as a father of 4, it's perhaps not as easy to control everything your kids do as some people think.
I follow games pretty closely so I am in a better place than most parents to guard my kids against exploitative mechanics but as they get older they will put a lot of pressure on me to let them play Fortnight or whatever the not new game is. I don't want them to not be able to play the games their friends are playing. If my parents had barred me from playing games I doubt I would have had the strong friend circle I had as a kid.
So I will try to reasonably support their gaming. Not cut them off completely but to limit their spending. But it would be a lot easier for me if the industry was not doing everything in it's power to squeeze more money out of them. They have specialists in behavioral psychology advising them on how to encourage people to keep spending. Again, I will be able to tell my kids "no". I will personally oversee every payment. But a lot of parents are not in the position to be that involved in their children's gaming.
I think a lot of good parents would still like a bit of help.
Let me see if I can use an admittedly imperfect metaphor: We, as parents recognize that cigarettes are bad for kids. And we can make rules that they should not buy them. And we can take them away if we see them in the house. That's being a good parent. But I am still happy that shops are not allowed to sell them to my kids. I think the fact that they cannot easily buy tobacco makes my job a lot easier. Yes the tocacco industry would do better economically if we pulled these restrictions. You would be able to buy cigarettes in vending machines like in the old days. There would be a benefit for the adult consumer. But we realize that these benefits are outweighed by the dangers of getting kids addicted to nicotine. Again it is not a perfect metaphor but that is what I am trying to get at.
I follow games pretty closely so I am in a better place than most parents to guard my kids against exploitative mechanics but as they get older they will put a lot of pressure on me to let them play Fortnight or whatever the not new game is. I don't want them to not be able to play the games their friends are playing. If my parents had barred me from playing games I doubt I would have had the strong friend circle I had as a kid.
So I will try to reasonably support their gaming. Not cut them off completely but to limit their spending. But it would be a lot easier for me if the industry was not doing everything in it's power to squeeze more money out of them. They have specialists in behavioral psychology advising them on how to encourage people to keep spending. Again, I will be able to tell my kids "no". I will personally oversee every payment. But a lot of parents are not in the position to be that involved in their children's gaming.
I think a lot of good parents would still like a bit of help.
Let me see if I can use an admittedly imperfect metaphor: We, as parents recognize that cigarettes are bad for kids. And we can make rules that they should not buy them. And we can take them away if we see them in the house. That's being a good parent. But I am still happy that shops are not allowed to sell them to my kids. I think the fact that they cannot easily buy tobacco makes my job a lot easier. Yes the tocacco industry would do better economically if we pulled these restrictions. You would be able to buy cigarettes in vending machines like in the old days. There would be a benefit for the adult consumer. But we realize that these benefits are outweighed by the dangers of getting kids addicted to nicotine. Again it is not a perfect metaphor but that is what I am trying to get at.
Yes, but doesn't the Belgium laws affect everyone, and not just kids? Plus, if I remember right Europe was always the least profitable region with it usually only bringing in less than 8% of margins, while with the U.S it does provide a big enough revunue. Enough that I'll say that companies would risk the A-rating.
Did you see this?
You mentioned Fortnite. They can all play the exact same game as their friends. The only thing they might be missing is skins, and if they pressure you to buy them that's really no different to them pressuring you to buy whatever the new hotness thing is which has gone on for generations. Actually, if this bill became law, it could make the skins more expensive for you to buy.
Yeah, Belgium was small much like Europe and US does have more revenue, but pretty much all gacha and jp mobile games have much more in asia and japan. It's why I see them just remaining on that region.
Actually I think it is a bit different.
If my daughter pressures me into buying her a new pair of shoes we will go to the store. Then we will select exactly the pair of shoes she wants. This will conclude her purchase. We are not going to buy a shoebox before opening it to see if what is contained inside is something she wants. We will not keep buying them until she gets her favorite style.
And games that lock progression to lootboxes are even worse. Now if she doesn't buy the correct shoes, she can't go to the park. Or perhaps she can go to the park but must wait 2 hours for the gate to unlock.
Fortnight was a bad example as this game is better than most and I believe has some see-through loot boxes. I am not against cosmetic DLC. I am against manipulative selling practices. If you can go to a "skin shop" and buy the exact skin you want at a clearly marked price, and that the skin you buy does nothing more than change your appearance, I agree, it would be similar to things that have gone on for generations.
But in many cases, it's not like this. And the industry has shown time and time again that if left unchecked they will continue pushing for more and more.
If my DLC purchases have to cost more to take the pressure off the kids, so be it.
So we really are that insignificant in the end. I expected it, but I at least thought they would take the risk with a higher age rating.
In the case of the bill, an age gate wouldn't be enough if it can be proven that kids manage to play those games anyway.
If you read my reply to you, then you'd know there are already measure in place to prevent your kids from spending even one dollar.
No matter what, I'm 100% certain they will be pressuring you to buy this or that new hot thing.
I see, I was expecting it to be the same as buying beer, or an M-rating game in the PSN, where you just need to prove you age, and nothing else. They really are cranking down on it, by blocking any loopholes.
So you think things are fine as they are and nothing should be changed?
There isn't enough reason to warrant this bill. I'm surprised at the number of people who welcome hamfisted government involvement and all the negative consequences that includes, just because they don't like something that they can easily ignore. It's a very competitive market and people are free to choose which games succeed or don't.
I am aware that parental controls exist. But I disagree that just because we can set them up, that intentionally manipulative practices should continue. I would rather the game companies police themselves but they have proved time and time again that they are unwilling to do so.
And I am also 100% certain that my kids will of course be "pressuring me to buy this or that new hot thing" that's what kids do. I am not making the case that kids won't always pressure parents into buying them stuff. But you honestly don't see any difference between buying a physical good and buying a lootbox? None at all?
I like to think that a good portion of people aren't really welcoming government intervention as if they feel it's the best solution (it most certainly isn't), but more like they're okay that something is being done about a problem they consider severe enough as to require action to curtail it. And if the industry won't police themselves and consumers are in too deep to break free from the manipulation, the government would have to step in if something were to be done.
That whole race to the bottom crap in the mobile market is depressing. I remember when many mobile games had potential to be great in their own right, but now it's the primordial soup for some of the worst practices in the industry.
I've debated with you a lot in the past on loot boxes so I know you're not surprised at all because it's been explained to you a million times that many would have preferred self-regulation, but the industry wouldn't do it. The ESRB wouldn't step on the toes of the lobbyists because... $$$.
If you don't take offence can I ask if you work in the games industry, because I don't think I know of another poster on this forum who gets quite as defensive as you do around any criticism of loot boxes or monetisation topics.
At least if you did I'd understand that bias better, as I do expect many devs or designers will be incredibly defensive over how they might make money. Somewhat understandable but my sympathy runs out with how little care most devs have for responsible or fair gambling/spending.
And I will say I'm also not buying you being surprised at some responses given you're on a forum at least with posters saying they are left-wing, which could align them with me https://www.resetera.com/threads/game-journalism-of-thrones-the-jimquisition.119265/post-21165342 As I said in that post I have some scepticism to whether or not this forum is anywhere near as left-wing as it portrays itself, or if the free market centre-right capitalists far outweigh the leftists.
Three of the most "valuable and important" things to humans, gambling, alcohol and pussy. Although, we can change the last now to simply sex. No longer do you need brothels, you load up tinder and anyone can get sex within 30 minutes to an hour. I've been rewatching Deadwood and have it on the brain. People want to have fun in life, that often involves those three things, either spending money on things that make your brain feel good, or using your body to feel good.
But you don't need to be an anti-capitalist to say, hey, wait a minute, we're really going fucking nuts here with billionaire valued corporations treating this like the wild-wild west. Alcohol got regulated, sex-work got regulated and even now dating apps are draped in regulation/terms and expectations. Gambling in the sports industry is definitely still at levels of exploitation and abuse, but at least we have some pushback and regulation. Age-gates, advertisements being monitored, odds and what not having to be clear and displayed on things like casino machines, etc.
You cannot trust or expect millionaires and billionaires to self-regulate their feeding frenzies, because they don't or won't. Power and money corrupt, they always do. The only saving grace throughout humanity is checks and balances where pushback, and when its needed, regulation, to support capitalism but try and restrict it's natural pathways to abuse, exploitation and corruption.
No one gets their PS5 with PSVR2 that you can plug into your ass and take a virtual shit, or Xbox Two that does 16K at 60FPS because MS pledged to spend however much money they need to, to never be less powerful than PlayStation, or even the Nintendo Switch 2 with... well, maybe 1080p/60FPS because Nintendo does still spend modestly and focus more on 1st party output. But, Nintendo, the kings of permanent $60 1st party titles because "We don't want the perception of devaluing our games by having sales like the others". They all need lots of money to provide the shiny boxes everyone on here goes nuts over and cries about come E3. Without capitalism you don't get all of that "fun time", but capitalism with no moral, ethical or sometimes Government pushback can be a blight on humanity.
This industries comeuppance is arriving due to the past 5~10 years of a hysterical rush towards generating as much money no matter the consequences. From the mobile industry being an ethical shit-show, to the console space deciding to literally copy the mobile industry and still demand $60+ entry points. To influencers, advertisers and more spending soo much time shilling, deceiving and being snake oil salesmen on YouTube and elsewhere. To publishers and developers embracing crunch far worse than before and disposing of employees like used condoms. Soo much of this industry right now is the perfect example of capitalism run riot.
Last edited: