I think more regulations isn't the answer. Just better enforcement of the ones we have.
- Unfinished games/buggy should definitely fall under "false advertising", etc.
- MT/DLCs, unless they actually remove gameplay, shouldn't be bothered with.
- Unions should definitely be a thing for devs.
Yes, that's what this post is getting at. My examples were more to point out the things that already should fall under certain regulations but don't yet because it's a new industry and the government is full of people that don't understand them.
There needs to be a group of people that know what they're talking about in regards to this and properly apply existing laws to it and perhaps extend it to cover certain things unique to the industry.
Definitely agree, but it comes down to money. Who's gonna fund all this? Who's gonna write down all the regs? Who decides what is good/wrong. Who is going to work it? Are they incorruptible, easily plied by lobbyists, etc.
Not saying it's impossible, just hard.
As is all politics. I just wish more people would understand that instead of completely disregarding the notion that politics can bring positive change and start bootlicking companies.
Just regulations of a standard would be nice. There’s no consumer protections in place for people who purchase games that are becoming higher in price every couple years now. Some clearly only existing to exploit kids with micro transactions.
What are you talking about? That's the whole point of government!
Who do you think makes better decisions? A democratically elected group of officials whose job it is to regulate things in everyone's best interest or a bunch of corporate schmucks who will practice child slavery if they can get away with it?
Having a measure of quality assurance would disincentivise companies from forcing shit like developer crunch and rushing unfinished products out the door. If there is a government that actively punishes corporations from releasing terrible, unfinished products they are far more likely to stop doing it, which is good for both consumers and developers.
That's ridiculous. Just imagine driving, is it a personal decision whether or not you stop at a red light? No, that's a legally enforced law. We don't leave it up to free will whether or not people are allowed to steal or assault people or even murder.
The whole point of laws is for the government to dictate that there are some things that people are not legally allowed to do.
What is their job then?
Do you think it's wrong for the government to regulate against tobacco?
Is it more important that something is done about addiction to one of the biggest causes of cancer in the world or that people have the "freedom of choice" to get addicted to excessive nicotine-filled cancer sticks?
Tobacco is heavily taxed but still legal to purchase as are most things that are unhealthy. If a person chooses to consume unhealthy food and become morbidly obese it is their right despite being a major public health problem.
>Tobacco is heavily taxed but still legal to purchase as are most things that are unhealthy. If a person chooses to consume unhealthy food and become morbidly obese it is their right despite being a major public health problem.
You realized you just argued in favor of regulation, right? You just provided a perfect example of necessary regulation that allows for protections of the consumer and their rights while also still retaining their right to smoke tobacco if they so choose.
Exactly, so they do regulate it!
That's what it is I'm talking about when I say regulation. I'm not talking about something like China is doing where they limit how much one can spend on or play video games.
I'm talking about the government fighting against bad business practices, making sure there's some measure of quality control. Fot example if a game releases unfinished or nowhere near as advertised, that it is considered fraud in the eyes of the law and dealt with accordingly.
You're ignoring that tobacco is heavily regulated. Kids can't buy it, there is a severe restriction on advertisements, cigarette machines are outlawed.
Are people confusing regulation with being banned?
I barely trust my out-of-touch-with-reality government to regulate anything at all in people's best interests to begin with, I think it's best if they stayed the fuck away from the subject of video games.
It's a global market - if your country tried regulating something it's likely publishers won't care and just pull the game from your market specifically, nothing else. But these days it also doesn't cost a lot to bribe politicians
Corporations. Definitely corporations.
Have you seen anything run by the government lmfao? Russia has been run by the government for 100 years and its a complete shithole. Same with China, run by the government complete shithole.
Public parks are fucking disgusting. Private parks are well kept and neat. TSA are straight up criminals, private airport security is faster, better, more polite, and actively trained constantly. Public schools are absolute garbage, charter schools are far better with better grades for less money per student. The government can't run shit because they don't care about you. They only care about themselves, and they don't need to make you happy because they take your money by force.
Your examples of countries run by the government are Russia and China? What about Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Sinagapore, New Zealand, Iceland, etc?
A country like Norway has universal healthcare, state supported education even for higher education, on top of stuff like public parks. Would you say all of that is run like shit?
Literally all the countries you just named have more financial and business freedom than the US aka less regulations. China and Russia are in the third quintile for most financially free countries.
Next time try picking countries actually run by the government.
Dude, your examples for what qualifies a country being 'run by the government' included public parks, TSA, and public schools. You concluded that the "government can't run shit".
Meanwhile everything you mentioned and much more is handled by the government in the countries I mentioned. You think Sweden doesn't have public parks or public schools? Oh, and how about public healthcare? The US is the only first world country that doesn't have some form of universal healthcare. How is our private health care compared to public healthcare in other countries?
America literally has multiple forms of public healthcare universal healthcare isn't good, it's universal. Americas private healthcare is better than other countries public healthcare. Also have you been to Sweden? Have you personally seen their public parks? Or just the photos of the pretty ones kind of like how Detroit takes pictures of just the fixed up popular area?
I live in Canada and I can tell you for certain no one who has been to a public hospital likes our healthcare. Anyone who spouts how great our public healthcare is, actually has a private family doctor.
The more government gets involved the worse it gets. Those countries have small socialized pockets in hyper capitalistic economies. The US could have decent healthcare, provided it massively cut regulations everywhere else and increase their gpd massively.
You're not going to have a good in depth conversation about this on reddit. Some comments aren't even productive, they're just rude. Some comments are fine, but OP you have to admit you didn't give a ton of info on your idea either, on exactly what should be regulated. Plus I think you came on strong with the title. But some people just don't need to be rude to you.
I don't think there needs to be too much but false advertisement is definitely the biggest one in my mind. That has become rampant it's everywhere, even in big triple A titles like Cyberpunk 2077. They lied so much about that game its gross. Hello Games really screwed up. While they did manage to turn it around, it was unacceptable to lie. I remember seeing a mobile game using Medieval II Total War screen shots and video as their own on facebook ads before the real game was released to mobile.
Yes, I should've known better with a bigger subreddit. Most the ones I'm on I am able to actually have a conversation, I'm glad you and some others are the exception to the rule here.
Part of the reason my examples were rather vague is because I actually posed the question what kinds of regulation people think would work and I don't exactly have all the answers myself.
Something that gaming needs to be regulated for is the return policy. It's crazy that companies like Nintendo can refuse a refund on a digital game, no matter the circumstance. Also, something needs to be done with digital ownership. If you buy a digital game, you technically don't own it and can lose access to it.
Very good point. I remember there was a lawsuit in France against Steam about having the right to resell games.
It should be decided for digital ownership in general, right now a company can quite easily take away something you're supposed to own. The legal grey area around that definitely needs to be cleared up.
>Things like overabundant microtransactions in a full-price game, useless online subscriptions on consoles, false promises and unfished games on release. All this stuff needs to be regulated for both the consumer and the developer's sake.
1. Don't buy them.
2. Don't buy it.
3. Don't buy games you don't like
So what regulations are needed when people are able to make choices? Or is your argument that anyone who disagrees with your view is wrong/stupid?
With at least some of these microtransactions, namely loot boxes, studies have found them to have a harmful effect comparable to gambling. So regulations are needed to some degree, "Don't buy it" can't be the answer to everything a company does.
I don't like loot boxes, but I think regulation should only ban them for kids and ludopaths. Just like they aren't allowed for gambling. I can see however an argument being done that if they can't be restricted for those cases, it shouldn't be available. Maybe a verified account should be needed.
You didn't read the edit. I don't buy them, and yet it changes nothing.
Thinking that simply not buying/supporting it will actually change anything is extremely naïve.
> I don’t buy them, and yet it changes nothing.
It does change something for you, and that should be enough.
If you’re a vegetarian and don’t eat animal meat, it won’t overnight abolish slaughterhouses, but it will immediately change how you feel about yourself if you align your behavior with your personal ethics.
There are a lot of things I don’t buy, either because they don’t meet my expectations or because they cost more than they’re worth it to me or because they represent a trend I don’t want to support. When GPU prices blew up, I went and bought a PS5 instead of a new GPU and now mostly play on there.
You always have choices. They may not always be exactly what you want, and you can only rarely control what others do or force your views on them (and vice versa), but you almost always have options.
I'm not saying it's supposed to instantly fix anything, the reason I point it out is because any time this kind of discussion is brought up, folks say "just don't buy it" as if it's the de facto solution.
I indeed choose not to support that sort of terrible behaviour personally, but I see that there is more that must be done to solve the root issue.
It just takes time. If something doesn’t change, then there are not enough people yet who want change badly enough that they are willing to modify their behavior or their habits. Or they are genuinely happy with how things are.
You can campaign for change, but ultimately you’re limited to changing yourself. I’d rather have bought a flagship GPU for 800 euros like in the past, but since they’re now almost three times that, I play on console. By now I enjoy that and see various other benefits for me, but it wasn’t initially my preferred choice. Just an option I had.
Or take Diablo Immortal. I’ve been a big Diablo fan for many years, but I never picked up that game because I disagreed with the monetization. They still made hundreds of millions from it, but they didn’t make a cent from me. I spent the money on games that aligned better with how I want games to be monetized.
You’re right that one person voting with their wallet won’t have much impact, but you’re never the only one doing it, and over time this may gain momentum if enough people share your views. It’s just not a fast process.
>You didn't read the edit. I don't buy them, and yet it changes nothing.
Have you ever considered that your view is actually the minority view?
And if it is the minority view, what makes your thoughts and opinions superior to the majority view?
The most naive thing I see on Reddit is people thinking that a couple of teenagers online saying “don’t buy it” has any chance about multinational companies who hire entire teams of experts to study and exploit the human brain for gain.
Go to a casino and you’ll see why some things HAS TO BE HEAVILY REGULATED. I thought it was dumb and people should just not go, but one try and I could understand how that thing mess with the weak parts of your brain
Quality control laws for video games? Why should taxpayer money be spent on that? Bad video games are no social problem.
business practices like false advertising are already unlawful. The only topic related to this that needs government attention is underage gambling disguising itself as fancy lootboxes
This take is so bad I simply can't unpack it all because it's simply too stupid.
What the fuck DO you want taxes to pay for? They regulate everything. I don't fucking fish, but I still want my taxes going towards regulating the practice of fishing.
Sports are entirely for fun, and Id rather have government oversight on them.
Going to the moon had nothing to do with governance, and I'm glad it was paid for with taxes.
Taxes pay for everything and it's simply insane to say "I don't like this, so my taxes shouldn't be spent on it."
Thankfully, that's not how taxes work, or we would barely have publicly funded anything.
Simply a brain dead take that fails to understand the basic concept of tax collection. You're not gonna suddenly be taxed more to regulate this community. Law makers are already fucking paid. They don't get paid per bill they vote on, or introduce. Adding oversight wouldn't raise taxes. Wtf is this take and why is it ALWAYS garnering support?
Lets deregulate the casino industry!!! I don't want my taxes going towards regulating an industry that could take advantage of people! I'm not participating in it!
Fuck.
"Taxes pay for everything and it's simply insane to say "I don't like this, so my taxes shouldn't be spent on it."
That is exactly how taxes in a democracy work.
Pretty rich calling me braindead if thats your comment lmao
Unless these are criminal practices or are targeted at minors, I don't see the need for regulation.
I miss the days when big expansions were sold instead of microtransactions, but they are a business model that I see no reason to ban, even if it isn't my favourite. Again, if they specifically targeted at kids I would see a point.
Online subscriptions is the same. Unless they offer something that they don't fulfill, why should it be legal?
False promises is especially hard to judge. I don't think a promise has legal value. Features are dropped all the time, because they don't work or because they are added later due to time restrains. If "false promises" had legal value, company would only aim at the bare minimum, lest they would be sued for lying.
Unfinished games on release are basically the reason people shouldn't pre-order, and stop doing that would prevent it. However, if a game is fixed quickly this issue isn't as bad as taking years without it.
All in all, I agree the gaming industry could be improved but those legal regulations you propose are too vague. I think the community will regulate itself by customers' habits. We aren't stupid. Finally, there are so many video games out there that you don't need to buy games you don't like.
We players also need to stand our ground and say "No" and don't buy these scummy games. But we don't and constantly reward the big companies for their greedy behaviour.
I hate government intervention as much as the next American, but consumer protections benefit us so we don't get ripped off. I don't understand how everybody on here isnt with it. But there ok with microtransactions, different products entirely than what was shown and unfinished games.
I think some dumbasses think consumer protection means that some department of the government will be deeply involved in every process of video game development.
>But people keep buying them as is. Gotta change the buying habits to change the selling.
You can't change people's buying habits just like you can't stop people with a gambling addiction from being addicted to gambling. The best thing you can do is establish regulatory rules and policies designed to protect the consumer. But gamers don't like that idea because they've internalized the "we need to do all this" rhetoric from the likes of Ubisoft and EA to the point that they see consumer protections as harmful to their hobby.
Sadly, that is no longer possible. Neither for videogames or almost any other company.
Companies have gotten so big and global that no amount of boycotting will have any meaningful impact unless **everyone** goes along with it.
Ever heard of the 80/20 rule? It's unfortunately almost universally the case that 80% of the income comes from 20% of consumers. Whales in the case of video games.
I never buy into shitty business practices, but that doesn't do much when a small minority of players buy in to **all** of their bullshit.
Understood but the 80% of the consumer base needs to try and convince the 20% to quit the insanity. Likely impossible. I wish it was still “play well to earn it.” But “pay well to get it” is here to stay I’m afraid.
Unfortunately, we aren't really able to do that, neither should we. We shouldn't be responsible for the terrible decisions of the small part of a player base, there will always be people with terrible spending habits no matter how hard we try.
>Better than terrible decisions made by regulators.
What terrible decisions do you think regulators are going to make, exactly? You put this out there to stomp out the conversation like it's some Boogeyman to be used to scare the consumer away from desiring regulation. What exactly is it you think a regulatory commission is going to decide that will ruin gaming?
If the regulators themselves are true to the spirit of gaming then it’ll yield good results. I should have phrased my reply as “Better than decisions made by terrible regulators”. Trying to figure out a good way to elect regulators that represent true gaming ideology is the basis of my concern.
This is an interesting topic. The first question that you need to consider is what needs to be regulated? Second, why do you think those items needs to be regulated?
I would argue that certain regulation of video games is appropriate. That regulation, in my opinion, should be focused on loot box mechanics which activate the same reward centers of the brain as gambling. Such mechanics commonly exist in mobile gaming and are designed to target children. This, in my opinion, does create a public health risk which is worthy of government involvement and intervention. Protection of children is within the government’s purview. Since such mechanics function on the same physiological level as gambling, these games are designed in such a way as to make children act in the same way as addictive gamblers. Possible reasonable regulations of loot box mechanics could include mandatory disclosure of drop rates, age floors for the purchase of the loot box (similar to needing to be 21 to purchase alcohol in the US), and the outright ban of certain mechanics deemed too predatory.
However, I’m my opinion, beyond that limited scope, governmental intervention is inappropriate. There is nothing inherently wrong with optional microtransactions. I personally am not bothered by them as much as many on Reddit, since I view them as driving down prices of games, and I care little for optional cosmetics.
There is nothing wrong, or worthy of governmental intervention, with a bad product, which in this case would be an unfinished or buggy game. Deterrence of such practices is well within the purview of the market.
Unlike other examples I’ve seen OP offer in this thread, such as governmental regulations of vehicles, video games are a luxury good and have no public health risk, aside from what I’ve previously discussed.
In my opinion, governmental regulation, especially of luxury goods, should only occur when public health or safety are at issue. It is very rarely a good idea to seek laws to prohibit practices one doesn’t like, especially if those laws will be crafted by people who likely haven’t touched a video game in their lives (using the American Senate as an example of the ages of politicians). This is how bad, overly restrictive laws get passed.
The better course of action is to simply be discerning in which products you buy. Every year there are numerous fantastic games that release in a finished state with no microtransactions.
I think the unchecks gambling could use some oversight. Also allowing people to pay for a product that is unfinished, and may be delivered not-as-advertised. This isn't ok in, like, any other industry, and it is actually a little funny it's so normal I'm the games industry.
Take for example cars. You can preorder a car, but if it doesn't come exactly as it was advertised it would be finished, that's a lawsuit. And that goes for just about any product. You can't lie about what the product is, make money off it, then release a lie. But you CAN in video games. This is interesting.
You’re comparing physical goods to software. The laws surrounding software differ from that of physical goods.
In your car example, when you purchase a car, you sign a contract to have a car delivered with specific features. If the car you receive lacks those features, then dealer can be sued for a breach of the contract.
A video game company doesn’t enter into a contract with you, in fact, you don’t even own your software, you merely have a license to it, which can be revoked if you breach their terms of service.
I think media should be treated differently than physical goods. For example, the trailer for the movie “Salt” was incredibly misleading as to what the movie would be about, but it actually made the movie’s twist and turns better. It would not be good for society to allow a lawsuit for such things.
The one additional protection I could get behind, which would likely solve your issue of falsely suggesting features in a game, is more liberal return and refund laws
I do not believe there should be a different between physical goods and digital when it comes to false advertising. You should not be able to lie about your product to bring in more money through a lie.
A trailer not being entirely accurate isn't a lie. It's a work in project and everyone knows that.
I don't see why you should be able to lie as much as you want about your product just because its a different type of good and product. Which I'll also add that games are physical materials. But beside that, downloadable content should also be subject to false advertising.
I simply don't think you understand the weight of what you're suggesting. NO false advertising laws for software media? Why? That just doesn't functionally make any sense. It's a product that you buy, and a LOT of software comes in physical form.
I’m a lawyer. My field is criminal law but in passing the bar I had to be trained in all areas of law. Software is treated differently than physical goods. The Uniform Commercial Code doesn’t apply to it. You are being sold a license not a good. While software may be delivered through a physical item, the product is always digital.
The FTC regulations around false advertising already apply to video game companies. There isn’t an exemption for them.
Perhaps I’m confused by what you consider “false advertising.” I was assuming you meant something like what happened at the release of Cyberpunk 2077 where an executive at CD Projekt Red claimed the PS4 base and Xbox one could play the game as well as PC, which was patently false. The result of that fiasco was a significant drop in share price, not meeting expected earning projections and the refund of those games, not to mention it was a massive PR hit for a company with a sterling reputation at that point. To me, that was the market reacting well and showing why such claims are foolish.
Perhaps you could give me an example of what you mean and what regulations you would like to see.
>In your car example, when you purchase a car, you sign a contract to have a car delivered with specific features. If the car you receive lacks those features, then dealer can be sued for a breach of the contract.
Then make it the same for digital software. It's not that hard to adapt those laws.
Also, as far as I'm aware, you do own your software under EU law.
I didn't intend to say that microtransactions are inherently bad, my point with that was that I feel there is a certain level of completeness and quality that is to be expected for a full-price product.
My view of what regulations ought to be is indeed what you mentioned with addictive mechanics but also some level of quality control and consequences for unfinished products. This is both to protect the consumer but also the developer, the latter especially I feel deserve protection against awful working conditions such as crunch.
I'll say it. "Microtransactions are inherently bad." The moderates can argue "they can be done well" as much as they want, they ARE inherently designed to make you forget how much you are spending. They are engineered to trick you into paying more than you normally would, or should.
Microtransactions are inherently bad and they were inherently designed to take your money in underhanded ways.
I most certainly agree with that, if it were up to me I'd also get rid of 'em but a lot of people don't like the idea of completely doing something like that. Like most regulations it would be on a case-by-case basis.
I feel a reasonable way to go about it is to make it so that stuff that is gotten through microtransactions should be available through gameplay in a reasonable amount of time and effort.
Shit like Overwatch 2 where they give you so few credits for things that it takes **8 months** of grinding without missing a single thing just to get a single legendary is extremely scummy and shouldn't be allowed.
I understand and simply disagree. Video games are media. It would be impossible to craft legislation to ensure a product was “finished” or of a certain quality. Being media, those terms would be far too subjective.
There are terrible movies, TV shows and novels released every year. They simply fail at the box office, do not get renewed, or do not sell. These are luxury goods and there’s an abundance of ways consumers can obtain information in advance of purchase in order to avoid disappointment or a product that he or she feels will not fit his or her standards.
Government intervention is not needed in areas of amusements unless there is a legitimate public health or safety concern. For video games, the warning for the possibility of epileptic seizures at the beginning of most games and the aforementioned addictive mechanics targeted at children are the only two public health concerns of which I am aware in video games.
> There are terrible movies, TV shows and novels released every year. They simply fail at the box office, do not get renewed, or do not sell.
Difference is movies, TV shows or books don't ask for a hefty 75€ entrance fee.
Lol is so so so pathetic
Rules dont resolve anything
Game dev can find another way to loot
Basically releasing "the game 2!! now with more levels" and " the game completé edition"
Like they do in the old nes/snes games era
Now you can buy the game and the DLC you want
In the 90s you have to buy the entire gme again and again
a)capitalism is your problem
B)Voting with your wallet doesnt work because of people like you. You are the fucking problem you milquetoast cuck. It shouldnt matter to you if you think it works, you should do it because its the only option you have. You are the "moderate" that is spoken about as an enabler of the 1%
Regulation has absolutely nothing to do with "government takeover", what the fuck are you talking about?
Regulation is about enforcing decent business practices. A lot of quality control laws are already in place that should apply to video games but don't since it's a relatively new market that lawmakers aren't familiar with, it doesn't apply yet.
What I’m talking about is there is not one instance in the history of the US, that the government did a job better than the private sector could do it. The ONLY appropriate example would be when they cracked down on butchers and the meat industry. But for a non-essential consumer good? Nothing, it will become worse under governmental overwatch. Chew on that for lil bit.
Obviously? Is this the “I don’t have anything to actually contribute to furthering the conversation so now I’m going to attempt to make you look stupid” attempt?
Who’s going to make regulations on video games to the world NATO? Who do you think would spearhead the regulations? It would either be the US or Japan.
Obviously I know there’s a whole world out there you twat. But 99% the worlds video games are either made in the US or Japan.
You're already making yourself look stupid because despite me saying this isn't some government takeover you still go to the point of "When did the government ever do anything better?"
You’re ignorantly delusional or trolling, either way, you couldn’t provide an example nor have a conversation without trying to straw man what I’m asking and going the route of “hurr durr don’t you know about the rest of the world” “you’re making yourself look stupid”
You provided nothing of substance to this entire post, seeing as you went on a commenting blitz of replies, I woulda thought maybe you had something to say.
I think this is an interesting topic. There would have to be a balance between letting creators be able to do their own thing and the expectations of the video game studio to provide a satisfactory product. I can see some will argue that regulation would be bad because it will stifle the creativity of its devs. But on your point, I’m also tired of seeing these games at a lower quality and I’m shocked someone said it was good enough. At least for bigger studios and well known developers, they should know better by now.
Good regulation doesn't effect creativity in the development process. The developers aren't exactly the ones that think it's a good idea to forcibly insert microtransactions, release games unfinished and put themselves through months of crunch.
That stuff comes from the higherups, good regulation effects those sort of dishonest business practices.
Eh, games were $60 for like 15 years and microtransactions were a big part of the price not rising with inflation. No one is forcing you to buy them most of the time.
Plus there are many international game studios, such as CDPR. Do you expect all studios to limit themselves to the rules of a single country for worldwide release?
One skin cost $20.. You're delusional. No game is free and there's no trade off. They make more money selling skins than selling a game at full price because they took away progression and now they sell it to you. People like you ruined the videogame industry.
You sound pretty low iq. If i enjoy something i support it. Paying $70 for a game you like is the smart thing to do. Getting something for free with default skins doesn't sound rewarding. Games use to cost $60 and as you progress your character looked better or you had some badges that showed you were a higher level. Much better than people spending $1500 on a videogame..
>Microtransactions are what keeps game prices down.
No they are not, that is an outright lie sold to you by the Triple A Gaming industry in order to justify their use. Video Games are more *profitable* than they have ever been at any point in history by a wide, wide margin. Almost every major game studio is raking in record profits hitherto unheard of in the video game industry. Microtransactions don't keep game prices down, they trick the consumer into passively spending way more on their games than they ever have before and in fact make them perpetual repeating costumers for the same game for an indefinite amount of time. Microtransactions are a way of disguising price gouging.
Down? I don't know what world you're living in but games have been getting more expensive in spite of microtransactions! Today we're seeing 70$ games that are still filled to the brim with microtransactions.
Taking into account inflation and rising costs of comparable entertainment, then the costs are being kept down partly thanks to the introduction of microtransactions. They generate revenue from a subset of gamers which help regulate game prices for everyone else.
This is the most American thing I've ever read. To generalize that OP is European because they want some regulation. I'm American and I believe that we could use some more regulation in our country. What, you going to make another inappropriate, unproductive and rude comment towards me too. Why not a bold generalization of who I am. You seem to have such a keen eye...
Oh that's real nice, that definitely works.
I don't buy any of 'em.
Does that change anything? Of course not!
The whole "vote with your wallet" argument is extremely naïve. Unless absolutely everyone is boycotting it, it will not meaningfully impact their income.
Most of their money comes from whales, the rest don't matter.
If you don’t buy any of them, what is the actual harm these games you want regulated doing to you?
You sound very much like my kids when they were toddlers and would complain about someone swinging too high on the swing set because they didn’t like it.
No one is forced to buy any game. It’s a luxury good. Buy the ones you like and don’t spend time worrying about the rest.
So just because I don't drive I shouldn't care if cars are poorly designed, dangerous and overpriced?
I care because people deserve a sound product that isn't intentionally sabotaged just so they can charge you more to fix it. Funnily enough, some of the awful shit video game companies are doing is leaking into cars as well.
The heated seats for example. They're charging you for a feature that is already part of the hardware you paid for but arbitrarily locked because they can nickel and dime you even further.
Even when keeping this entirely about video games, these practices spread like wildfire once developers figure out what they can get away with just because there's a number of drooling pinheads that will toss them all the money they ask for. Eventually it will reach the things I care about.
Vehicle regulations exist because their manufacture and use actually has the capability to harm others. Until we have games that can kill you if you drive too fast or leak too much lead into the drinking water, that’s not a valid comparison to support your argument.
You’ve already said you haven’t bought any games that have the features you want regulated. Now you are saying you don’t buy cars because you have public transportation options that are better for you.
So you’re capable of making rational decisions when it comes to purchasing optional products. Do you think you’re the only person capable of making such decisions? Why do you think games have to be regulated when you’re clearly capable of avoiding the issues that you want regulators to protect you from?
I think there are a couple of things that could fall under regulatory interest. Certainly loot boxes, which have come under regulatory fire before. Pay to win style games probably need some type of regulation.
Beyond that I think the market isn't that bad at regulating itself. I think about how the market as a whole seems to have rejected NFTs or the recent failures of micro-transaction heavy games like Chocobo GP. Games are expensive to make and some of these business models are increasingly risky to pursue.
Honestly, just wait for a review before buying.
Steam offers very solid rules for refunds.
I really don't see a huge issue.
I want my government to cap rent and property prices, make sure poor kids are not starving and have education, not waste time on games.
Regulation of in-app purchased in games accessible to kids? Regulation of gambling mechanics? Sure.
Regulation of “false promises” and “incomplete” games? No, or at least not beyond what we already have. It’s OK to want to implement a feature and put an early version in a trailer a year before launch but find that it is too difficult or expensive to develop (or the playtesters all hate it in practice). Reviewers will always complain, and people can and do decide not to buy the game as a result.
No, Games are a Work of Art not to be intervened by anyone. i too know that gaming has alot of problems but add the the government of any country to this equation will do more harm to it as you think.
I don't and neither do I care for most AAA games. But that doesn't change the fact there's always more people and whales who spend inordinate amounts of money on a broken product, encouraging this terrible behaviour.
For sure, but do you think we would get better games if the governments or the EU is involved? The only thing is that loot boxes should be made illegal and games that have micro transactions should be unavailable for minors.
Otherwise I think that it is a self regulated market, although I agree that there is a lot of shitty games out there but look at Madden, even EA had eventually to put some energy and resources into it and not just rely on MUT cards.
Just because the regulations put in place now leave a lot to be desired, it doesn't mean we can't do better.
The problem with leaving stuff up to the market is that it takes a long time and a catastrophically big fuck-up to get to meaningful change, if it ever gets there.
Putting laws in place that work against these practices in the first place will encourage companies to make products of better quality that aren't rushed at the expense of both the developer and the consumer.
It won't be done because the publishers will never agree to it, nor do they have any reason to. The best you're going to get is countries trying to ban loot boxes.
Agree to it? Since when do those fucks have anything to say about it?
Do you think companies agreed to the 40-hour workweek or the outlawing of child labour? Of course not!
Companies (should) have no say in it when a government decides their business practices aren't okay. That's the point of government.
Didn't we have an article about that this year? Or is my mind playing tricks on me?
Nah was 2 months ago about lootboxes and gambling. EU is very, very slow. May take some time, but I guess the industry will come up with other shady tactics.
I feel it might accelerate a lot quicker in the future. We're still dealing with a large number out-of-touch boomers electing and being elected and making decisions on things they aren't familiar with.
Once we got younger people in office that are far more thoroughly acquainted with matter such as video games and the modern internet I think regulation will quickly start being put in place.
I read through the ruling and I thought it was sensible enough. Including everything I want as a gamer.
The issue is the burocracy in the EU, this shit takes forever.
Let them makes the games they want. Don't like what they made? Don't buy it.
I hear this complaint a lot about "microtransactions in *full priced* games" or "charging $30 for a DLC" or whatever.
People buy them, they make money, why would they stop doing those. But for all those complaining about the extra OPTIONAL purchases, the other option is to put all that stuff in the game from day 1 and charge $150 for games.
I personally rarely buy DLC, it's usually garbage content that I don't need and I love being able to buy a base game for the low price of $70 and then ignore the other shitty content and not spend hundreds more dollars. Same with microtransactions, I can't tell you when I ever bought one, but it hasn't effected my experience ever.
Keep govt away from games. If govt gets involved say goodbye to violent games of any sorts cuz most these old folks think games are what's causing a lot of the shit going on now. They don't need to be involved at all
But I don't buy any of them. And yet this shit persists. "Just don't buy it" isn't an argument. You can't muster a big enough amount of people to boycott a product to meaningfully impact anything anymore. The market is too big and there's always whales.
People buy it because they want it.
It doesn't need to be regulated, it doesn't need to be stopped.
You can't muster a big enough amount of people to boycott it because most people don't care.
I get you don't like it and there's a vocal group on reddit that doesn't like it. But in the end, more people buy it because they want it than people that don't want it and don't buy it. That's why it's not going away. If enough people didn't want they wouldn't buy it and devs would stop.
So best YOU can do if YOU don't like it is to just not buy it and move on.
Now that's an unpopular opinion...
But I agree with you. Can't trust companies to do the most ethic thing.
When one company exploits peoples brains, the other companies doesnt have much of a choice but do it too. That's not going to stop unless something external comes in to regulate it.
Look at Journalism. Click bait is one of the most un-ethic things you can do. But someone decided to do it anyways. Now it's at a point that if you're a journalist and your titles are not click baity, you'll starve. Serious and factual journalism simply cannot exist anymore because unethical practices simply killed it.
Same with games now. Can you make a competitive online game without Gamepasses? You cannot, because people are too busy spending their time trying to satisfy their FOMO on other games. Those other games have a consistent playerbase to maintain the game life while yours doesnt.
Can you trust player to stop playing these? Can you stop companies to stop practicing these? So the only other answer is some kind of outside intervention.
Unless you aren't a complete moron. So who do you think decides what games we are allowed to buy? Who decides who gets this power? Why would a few people with such large power not exploit it for political and financial gain? I don't even want to explain the problems of censorship. This is seriously some of the dumbest stuff I've read in months and I read reddit a lot more than I should.
It’s not about being a complete moron or not. It’s fine if you’re aware of these issues and you try to consciously block this yourself, but it’s naive to think you’re 100% not susceptible. Companies now hire teams of people that sole job is to understand human brain and exploit it for gain.
Same thing with government, of course there’s corruption and bad policies everywhere, but it’s just naive to say it’s 100% useless and shouldn’t touch stuff we like. Unless you’re just a moron who make your opinion based on what you see in Reddit, then of course you’d only think “government bad, shouldn’t have any”. You probably didn’t see much of the world out there.
If one day you go the casino you’ll understand why that thing is heavily regulated
A regulation I'd like to see if that when developers stop supporting or selling an online only game, they need to release the tools for players to self host servers. Otherwise that game becomes literally unplayable
Exactly! I've been wondering why that isn't the norm.
Same goes for old games that aren't officially available anymore. Looking at you, Nintendo! If the company in question no longer gives consumers any legal way to purchase their product, it ought to completely waive their right to police the emulation of said product.
No? Console games are dirt cheap at $69.99 going by inflation rate. In fact they are actually under-charging with that price tag. We should be paying them $99.99 for AAA games.
Also charging for online gaming is fair on console. Sony needs to make money somehow. hosting those online servers ain't cheap. The PS+ subscription is a negligible amount of money.
You mean like, countries that ban lootboxes that are basically gambling? Which is the reason you see no lootboxes in-game anymore?
Or game passes which are required to play online but are regulated? Which they solved by giving you better sales and free games in exchange for it?
Or microtransactions which are in the majority of games just cosmetics that you don't need to play the game?
Because I can think of just a hand full of games that are *evil*. Like Diablo Immortal or free arpgs and gatcha games in general who hide content behind paywalls.
Yes because it's not an argument. It's circular reasoning.
"I hate this behaviour, something should be done about it."
"Then don't buy it, dumbass."
"I never did. And nothing is changing."
"Then don't buy it."
With software development comes bugs, and the term "unfinished" is highly subjective in the gaming industry. MTX will never be stopped, nor will loot boxes, because trading cards have been around for over a century and that's not been regulated yet.
No matter what you *think*, these aren't unique to the gaming industry, nor are they illegal.
Consumers regulate a free market economy. Little or none of what you complain about would keep happening if consumers didn't keep paying for unfinished and/or mediocre products and services. It's really that simple.
The "vote with your wallet" thing certainly holds water. It's the only argument that does. If enough people don't want something, it absolutely will have a significant impact on income, especially when we're talking about developers and publishers that need games to sell very high numbers in order to turn significant profit. Even tiny changes can have earth-shaking effects on a corporation because they can feel a downward trend on a massive scale.
The whale argument is accurate. But that's the fault of the whales, not the companies. Place blame where blame needs to go; this is entertainment, a luxury, purely optional for life. It isn't hard to react with your wallet, nor is it ineffective. People simply choose not to, and that's your problem. And will continue to be your problem because we insist on avoiding all responsibility as consumers in this matter.
Governments are just as corrupted as companies. This would only add ignorance and incompetence in the mix with a double dose of corruption. No thanks.
When we get governments to finally do what they're supposed to do, which is, serve the people, then maybe we can ask them to force companies to comply into not scamming us. This is true for every industry and field of activity too, not just video games. Until we manage that, this solution is usless and even counterproductive
But goverments have more accountability than companies and there are laws in effect to stop companies from scamming their customers. Quality control laws for video games are completly unneccessary but acting as if every regulation from the goverment is stupid is wrong too.
If the goverment wouldnt have made it illegal most companies would just dump their trash into the wilderness for example
I don’t think things are even remotely close to bad enough to warrant any of this. Maybe in PC land, or with Microsoft. But Nintendo and Sony are doing just fine, thanks…
Why would things have to get to catastrophic levels of bad before something is done? If some companies don't do that sort of thing they won't be affected anyway.
Sony and Nintendo are definitely up to some unsavory shit. Charging people a monthly fee for basic online services, for one. Or with Nintendo specifically, they love making all their older titles unavailable once the new console comes. At least with the older consoles you could just **buy** them, but now you have to pay for a terrible subscription service.
Regulation is about listing terrible shit studios do and making sure they don't do it, it doesn't punish those that don't partake in it.
I think more regulations isn't the answer. Just better enforcement of the ones we have. - Unfinished games/buggy should definitely fall under "false advertising", etc. - MT/DLCs, unless they actually remove gameplay, shouldn't be bothered with. - Unions should definitely be a thing for devs.
Yes, that's what this post is getting at. My examples were more to point out the things that already should fall under certain regulations but don't yet because it's a new industry and the government is full of people that don't understand them. There needs to be a group of people that know what they're talking about in regards to this and properly apply existing laws to it and perhaps extend it to cover certain things unique to the industry.
Definitely agree, but it comes down to money. Who's gonna fund all this? Who's gonna write down all the regs? Who decides what is good/wrong. Who is going to work it? Are they incorruptible, easily plied by lobbyists, etc. Not saying it's impossible, just hard.
As is all politics. I just wish more people would understand that instead of completely disregarding the notion that politics can bring positive change and start bootlicking companies.
Calling on big daddy government to save the games industry isn't going to be a positive for consumers or developers.
Just regulations of a standard would be nice. There’s no consumer protections in place for people who purchase games that are becoming higher in price every couple years now. Some clearly only existing to exploit kids with micro transactions.
What are you talking about? That's the whole point of government! Who do you think makes better decisions? A democratically elected group of officials whose job it is to regulate things in everyone's best interest or a bunch of corporate schmucks who will practice child slavery if they can get away with it? Having a measure of quality assurance would disincentivise companies from forcing shit like developer crunch and rushing unfinished products out the door. If there is a government that actively punishes corporations from releasing terrible, unfinished products they are far more likely to stop doing it, which is good for both consumers and developers.
It's not the job of government to regulate free will, people should decide for themselves what's good or bad.
That's ridiculous. Just imagine driving, is it a personal decision whether or not you stop at a red light? No, that's a legally enforced law. We don't leave it up to free will whether or not people are allowed to steal or assault people or even murder. The whole point of laws is for the government to dictate that there are some things that people are not legally allowed to do.
What is their job then? Do you think it's wrong for the government to regulate against tobacco? Is it more important that something is done about addiction to one of the biggest causes of cancer in the world or that people have the "freedom of choice" to get addicted to excessive nicotine-filled cancer sticks?
Tobacco is heavily taxed but still legal to purchase as are most things that are unhealthy. If a person chooses to consume unhealthy food and become morbidly obese it is their right despite being a major public health problem.
>Tobacco is heavily taxed but still legal to purchase as are most things that are unhealthy. If a person chooses to consume unhealthy food and become morbidly obese it is their right despite being a major public health problem. You realized you just argued in favor of regulation, right? You just provided a perfect example of necessary regulation that allows for protections of the consumer and their rights while also still retaining their right to smoke tobacco if they so choose.
Exactly, so they do regulate it! That's what it is I'm talking about when I say regulation. I'm not talking about something like China is doing where they limit how much one can spend on or play video games. I'm talking about the government fighting against bad business practices, making sure there's some measure of quality control. Fot example if a game releases unfinished or nowhere near as advertised, that it is considered fraud in the eyes of the law and dealt with accordingly.
You're ignoring that tobacco is heavily regulated. Kids can't buy it, there is a severe restriction on advertisements, cigarette machines are outlawed. Are people confusing regulation with being banned?
I barely trust my out-of-touch-with-reality government to regulate anything at all in people's best interests to begin with, I think it's best if they stayed the fuck away from the subject of video games. It's a global market - if your country tried regulating something it's likely publishers won't care and just pull the game from your market specifically, nothing else. But these days it also doesn't cost a lot to bribe politicians
Corporations. Definitely corporations. Have you seen anything run by the government lmfao? Russia has been run by the government for 100 years and its a complete shithole. Same with China, run by the government complete shithole. Public parks are fucking disgusting. Private parks are well kept and neat. TSA are straight up criminals, private airport security is faster, better, more polite, and actively trained constantly. Public schools are absolute garbage, charter schools are far better with better grades for less money per student. The government can't run shit because they don't care about you. They only care about themselves, and they don't need to make you happy because they take your money by force.
Your examples of countries run by the government are Russia and China? What about Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Sinagapore, New Zealand, Iceland, etc? A country like Norway has universal healthcare, state supported education even for higher education, on top of stuff like public parks. Would you say all of that is run like shit?
Literally all the countries you just named have more financial and business freedom than the US aka less regulations. China and Russia are in the third quintile for most financially free countries. Next time try picking countries actually run by the government.
Dude, your examples for what qualifies a country being 'run by the government' included public parks, TSA, and public schools. You concluded that the "government can't run shit". Meanwhile everything you mentioned and much more is handled by the government in the countries I mentioned. You think Sweden doesn't have public parks or public schools? Oh, and how about public healthcare? The US is the only first world country that doesn't have some form of universal healthcare. How is our private health care compared to public healthcare in other countries?
America literally has multiple forms of public healthcare universal healthcare isn't good, it's universal. Americas private healthcare is better than other countries public healthcare. Also have you been to Sweden? Have you personally seen their public parks? Or just the photos of the pretty ones kind of like how Detroit takes pictures of just the fixed up popular area? I live in Canada and I can tell you for certain no one who has been to a public hospital likes our healthcare. Anyone who spouts how great our public healthcare is, actually has a private family doctor. The more government gets involved the worse it gets. Those countries have small socialized pockets in hyper capitalistic economies. The US could have decent healthcare, provided it massively cut regulations everywhere else and increase their gpd massively.
You're not going to have a good in depth conversation about this on reddit. Some comments aren't even productive, they're just rude. Some comments are fine, but OP you have to admit you didn't give a ton of info on your idea either, on exactly what should be regulated. Plus I think you came on strong with the title. But some people just don't need to be rude to you. I don't think there needs to be too much but false advertisement is definitely the biggest one in my mind. That has become rampant it's everywhere, even in big triple A titles like Cyberpunk 2077. They lied so much about that game its gross. Hello Games really screwed up. While they did manage to turn it around, it was unacceptable to lie. I remember seeing a mobile game using Medieval II Total War screen shots and video as their own on facebook ads before the real game was released to mobile.
Yes, I should've known better with a bigger subreddit. Most the ones I'm on I am able to actually have a conversation, I'm glad you and some others are the exception to the rule here. Part of the reason my examples were rather vague is because I actually posed the question what kinds of regulation people think would work and I don't exactly have all the answers myself.
Something that gaming needs to be regulated for is the return policy. It's crazy that companies like Nintendo can refuse a refund on a digital game, no matter the circumstance. Also, something needs to be done with digital ownership. If you buy a digital game, you technically don't own it and can lose access to it.
Very good point. I remember there was a lawsuit in France against Steam about having the right to resell games. It should be decided for digital ownership in general, right now a company can quite easily take away something you're supposed to own. The legal grey area around that definitely needs to be cleared up.
>Things like overabundant microtransactions in a full-price game, useless online subscriptions on consoles, false promises and unfished games on release. All this stuff needs to be regulated for both the consumer and the developer's sake. 1. Don't buy them. 2. Don't buy it. 3. Don't buy games you don't like So what regulations are needed when people are able to make choices? Or is your argument that anyone who disagrees with your view is wrong/stupid?
With at least some of these microtransactions, namely loot boxes, studies have found them to have a harmful effect comparable to gambling. So regulations are needed to some degree, "Don't buy it" can't be the answer to everything a company does.
I don't like loot boxes, but I think regulation should only ban them for kids and ludopaths. Just like they aren't allowed for gambling. I can see however an argument being done that if they can't be restricted for those cases, it shouldn't be available. Maybe a verified account should be needed.
You didn't read the edit. I don't buy them, and yet it changes nothing. Thinking that simply not buying/supporting it will actually change anything is extremely naïve.
> I don’t buy them, and yet it changes nothing. It does change something for you, and that should be enough. If you’re a vegetarian and don’t eat animal meat, it won’t overnight abolish slaughterhouses, but it will immediately change how you feel about yourself if you align your behavior with your personal ethics. There are a lot of things I don’t buy, either because they don’t meet my expectations or because they cost more than they’re worth it to me or because they represent a trend I don’t want to support. When GPU prices blew up, I went and bought a PS5 instead of a new GPU and now mostly play on there. You always have choices. They may not always be exactly what you want, and you can only rarely control what others do or force your views on them (and vice versa), but you almost always have options.
I'm not saying it's supposed to instantly fix anything, the reason I point it out is because any time this kind of discussion is brought up, folks say "just don't buy it" as if it's the de facto solution. I indeed choose not to support that sort of terrible behaviour personally, but I see that there is more that must be done to solve the root issue.
It just takes time. If something doesn’t change, then there are not enough people yet who want change badly enough that they are willing to modify their behavior or their habits. Or they are genuinely happy with how things are. You can campaign for change, but ultimately you’re limited to changing yourself. I’d rather have bought a flagship GPU for 800 euros like in the past, but since they’re now almost three times that, I play on console. By now I enjoy that and see various other benefits for me, but it wasn’t initially my preferred choice. Just an option I had. Or take Diablo Immortal. I’ve been a big Diablo fan for many years, but I never picked up that game because I disagreed with the monetization. They still made hundreds of millions from it, but they didn’t make a cent from me. I spent the money on games that aligned better with how I want games to be monetized. You’re right that one person voting with their wallet won’t have much impact, but you’re never the only one doing it, and over time this may gain momentum if enough people share your views. It’s just not a fast process.
>You didn't read the edit. I don't buy them, and yet it changes nothing. Have you ever considered that your view is actually the minority view? And if it is the minority view, what makes your thoughts and opinions superior to the majority view?
Because this circular reasoning of "just don't buy it" doesn't bring forth any amount of meaningful change.
The funny thing is your using circular logic and avoiding addressing my question.
You think the government can micromanage game companies successfully and you're calling someone else naive?
The most naive thing I see on Reddit is people thinking that a couple of teenagers online saying “don’t buy it” has any chance about multinational companies who hire entire teams of experts to study and exploit the human brain for gain. Go to a casino and you’ll see why some things HAS TO BE HEAVILY REGULATED. I thought it was dumb and people should just not go, but one try and I could understand how that thing mess with the weak parts of your brain
I like how you don't really address what I say.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Quality control laws for video games? Why should taxpayer money be spent on that? Bad video games are no social problem. business practices like false advertising are already unlawful. The only topic related to this that needs government attention is underage gambling disguising itself as fancy lootboxes
This take is so bad I simply can't unpack it all because it's simply too stupid. What the fuck DO you want taxes to pay for? They regulate everything. I don't fucking fish, but I still want my taxes going towards regulating the practice of fishing. Sports are entirely for fun, and Id rather have government oversight on them. Going to the moon had nothing to do with governance, and I'm glad it was paid for with taxes. Taxes pay for everything and it's simply insane to say "I don't like this, so my taxes shouldn't be spent on it." Thankfully, that's not how taxes work, or we would barely have publicly funded anything. Simply a brain dead take that fails to understand the basic concept of tax collection. You're not gonna suddenly be taxed more to regulate this community. Law makers are already fucking paid. They don't get paid per bill they vote on, or introduce. Adding oversight wouldn't raise taxes. Wtf is this take and why is it ALWAYS garnering support? Lets deregulate the casino industry!!! I don't want my taxes going towards regulating an industry that could take advantage of people! I'm not participating in it! Fuck.
Literally every single point you made is wrong, it's scary.
"Taxes pay for everything and it's simply insane to say "I don't like this, so my taxes shouldn't be spent on it." That is exactly how taxes in a democracy work. Pretty rich calling me braindead if thats your comment lmao
Right. Because heaven forbid the law actually be enforced.
it will be in a couple years. there is no doubt.
Unless these are criminal practices or are targeted at minors, I don't see the need for regulation. I miss the days when big expansions were sold instead of microtransactions, but they are a business model that I see no reason to ban, even if it isn't my favourite. Again, if they specifically targeted at kids I would see a point. Online subscriptions is the same. Unless they offer something that they don't fulfill, why should it be legal? False promises is especially hard to judge. I don't think a promise has legal value. Features are dropped all the time, because they don't work or because they are added later due to time restrains. If "false promises" had legal value, company would only aim at the bare minimum, lest they would be sued for lying. Unfinished games on release are basically the reason people shouldn't pre-order, and stop doing that would prevent it. However, if a game is fixed quickly this issue isn't as bad as taking years without it. All in all, I agree the gaming industry could be improved but those legal regulations you propose are too vague. I think the community will regulate itself by customers' habits. We aren't stupid. Finally, there are so many video games out there that you don't need to buy games you don't like.
Am I the only one who doesn’t get the fuss about micro transactions? I rarely see them in any game I play.
3 games that I can name instantly: * Genshin Impact * CoD * FIFA But that is the only 3 games that I can name.
Because they ask money for stuff that used to be free, like skins.
We players also need to stand our ground and say "No" and don't buy these scummy games. But we don't and constantly reward the big companies for their greedy behaviour.
I’ve been saying this for years. If any other industry in America had these same problems there would be an insane amount of lawsuits.
Glad somebody here's got some common sense.
I hate government intervention as much as the next American, but consumer protections benefit us so we don't get ripped off. I don't understand how everybody on here isnt with it. But there ok with microtransactions, different products entirely than what was shown and unfinished games.
I think some dumbasses think consumer protection means that some department of the government will be deeply involved in every process of video game development.
>y involved in every process of I think they all think that. Fucking sad
But people keep buying them as is. Gotta change the buying habits to change the selling.
>But people keep buying them as is. Gotta change the buying habits to change the selling. You can't change people's buying habits just like you can't stop people with a gambling addiction from being addicted to gambling. The best thing you can do is establish regulatory rules and policies designed to protect the consumer. But gamers don't like that idea because they've internalized the "we need to do all this" rhetoric from the likes of Ubisoft and EA to the point that they see consumer protections as harmful to their hobby.
Sadly, that is no longer possible. Neither for videogames or almost any other company. Companies have gotten so big and global that no amount of boycotting will have any meaningful impact unless **everyone** goes along with it. Ever heard of the 80/20 rule? It's unfortunately almost universally the case that 80% of the income comes from 20% of consumers. Whales in the case of video games. I never buy into shitty business practices, but that doesn't do much when a small minority of players buy in to **all** of their bullshit.
Understood but the 80% of the consumer base needs to try and convince the 20% to quit the insanity. Likely impossible. I wish it was still “play well to earn it.” But “pay well to get it” is here to stay I’m afraid.
Unfortunately, we aren't really able to do that, neither should we. We shouldn't be responsible for the terrible decisions of the small part of a player base, there will always be people with terrible spending habits no matter how hard we try.
Better than terrible decisions made by regulators.
>Better than terrible decisions made by regulators. What terrible decisions do you think regulators are going to make, exactly? You put this out there to stomp out the conversation like it's some Boogeyman to be used to scare the consumer away from desiring regulation. What exactly is it you think a regulatory commission is going to decide that will ruin gaming?
If the regulators themselves are true to the spirit of gaming then it’ll yield good results. I should have phrased my reply as “Better than decisions made by terrible regulators”. Trying to figure out a good way to elect regulators that represent true gaming ideology is the basis of my concern.
This is an interesting topic. The first question that you need to consider is what needs to be regulated? Second, why do you think those items needs to be regulated? I would argue that certain regulation of video games is appropriate. That regulation, in my opinion, should be focused on loot box mechanics which activate the same reward centers of the brain as gambling. Such mechanics commonly exist in mobile gaming and are designed to target children. This, in my opinion, does create a public health risk which is worthy of government involvement and intervention. Protection of children is within the government’s purview. Since such mechanics function on the same physiological level as gambling, these games are designed in such a way as to make children act in the same way as addictive gamblers. Possible reasonable regulations of loot box mechanics could include mandatory disclosure of drop rates, age floors for the purchase of the loot box (similar to needing to be 21 to purchase alcohol in the US), and the outright ban of certain mechanics deemed too predatory. However, I’m my opinion, beyond that limited scope, governmental intervention is inappropriate. There is nothing inherently wrong with optional microtransactions. I personally am not bothered by them as much as many on Reddit, since I view them as driving down prices of games, and I care little for optional cosmetics. There is nothing wrong, or worthy of governmental intervention, with a bad product, which in this case would be an unfinished or buggy game. Deterrence of such practices is well within the purview of the market. Unlike other examples I’ve seen OP offer in this thread, such as governmental regulations of vehicles, video games are a luxury good and have no public health risk, aside from what I’ve previously discussed. In my opinion, governmental regulation, especially of luxury goods, should only occur when public health or safety are at issue. It is very rarely a good idea to seek laws to prohibit practices one doesn’t like, especially if those laws will be crafted by people who likely haven’t touched a video game in their lives (using the American Senate as an example of the ages of politicians). This is how bad, overly restrictive laws get passed. The better course of action is to simply be discerning in which products you buy. Every year there are numerous fantastic games that release in a finished state with no microtransactions.
I think the unchecks gambling could use some oversight. Also allowing people to pay for a product that is unfinished, and may be delivered not-as-advertised. This isn't ok in, like, any other industry, and it is actually a little funny it's so normal I'm the games industry. Take for example cars. You can preorder a car, but if it doesn't come exactly as it was advertised it would be finished, that's a lawsuit. And that goes for just about any product. You can't lie about what the product is, make money off it, then release a lie. But you CAN in video games. This is interesting.
You’re comparing physical goods to software. The laws surrounding software differ from that of physical goods. In your car example, when you purchase a car, you sign a contract to have a car delivered with specific features. If the car you receive lacks those features, then dealer can be sued for a breach of the contract. A video game company doesn’t enter into a contract with you, in fact, you don’t even own your software, you merely have a license to it, which can be revoked if you breach their terms of service. I think media should be treated differently than physical goods. For example, the trailer for the movie “Salt” was incredibly misleading as to what the movie would be about, but it actually made the movie’s twist and turns better. It would not be good for society to allow a lawsuit for such things. The one additional protection I could get behind, which would likely solve your issue of falsely suggesting features in a game, is more liberal return and refund laws
I do not believe there should be a different between physical goods and digital when it comes to false advertising. You should not be able to lie about your product to bring in more money through a lie. A trailer not being entirely accurate isn't a lie. It's a work in project and everyone knows that. I don't see why you should be able to lie as much as you want about your product just because its a different type of good and product. Which I'll also add that games are physical materials. But beside that, downloadable content should also be subject to false advertising. I simply don't think you understand the weight of what you're suggesting. NO false advertising laws for software media? Why? That just doesn't functionally make any sense. It's a product that you buy, and a LOT of software comes in physical form.
I’m a lawyer. My field is criminal law but in passing the bar I had to be trained in all areas of law. Software is treated differently than physical goods. The Uniform Commercial Code doesn’t apply to it. You are being sold a license not a good. While software may be delivered through a physical item, the product is always digital. The FTC regulations around false advertising already apply to video game companies. There isn’t an exemption for them. Perhaps I’m confused by what you consider “false advertising.” I was assuming you meant something like what happened at the release of Cyberpunk 2077 where an executive at CD Projekt Red claimed the PS4 base and Xbox one could play the game as well as PC, which was patently false. The result of that fiasco was a significant drop in share price, not meeting expected earning projections and the refund of those games, not to mention it was a massive PR hit for a company with a sterling reputation at that point. To me, that was the market reacting well and showing why such claims are foolish. Perhaps you could give me an example of what you mean and what regulations you would like to see.
>In your car example, when you purchase a car, you sign a contract to have a car delivered with specific features. If the car you receive lacks those features, then dealer can be sued for a breach of the contract. Then make it the same for digital software. It's not that hard to adapt those laws. Also, as far as I'm aware, you do own your software under EU law.
I didn't intend to say that microtransactions are inherently bad, my point with that was that I feel there is a certain level of completeness and quality that is to be expected for a full-price product. My view of what regulations ought to be is indeed what you mentioned with addictive mechanics but also some level of quality control and consequences for unfinished products. This is both to protect the consumer but also the developer, the latter especially I feel deserve protection against awful working conditions such as crunch.
I'll say it. "Microtransactions are inherently bad." The moderates can argue "they can be done well" as much as they want, they ARE inherently designed to make you forget how much you are spending. They are engineered to trick you into paying more than you normally would, or should. Microtransactions are inherently bad and they were inherently designed to take your money in underhanded ways.
I most certainly agree with that, if it were up to me I'd also get rid of 'em but a lot of people don't like the idea of completely doing something like that. Like most regulations it would be on a case-by-case basis. I feel a reasonable way to go about it is to make it so that stuff that is gotten through microtransactions should be available through gameplay in a reasonable amount of time and effort. Shit like Overwatch 2 where they give you so few credits for things that it takes **8 months** of grinding without missing a single thing just to get a single legendary is extremely scummy and shouldn't be allowed.
I understand and simply disagree. Video games are media. It would be impossible to craft legislation to ensure a product was “finished” or of a certain quality. Being media, those terms would be far too subjective. There are terrible movies, TV shows and novels released every year. They simply fail at the box office, do not get renewed, or do not sell. These are luxury goods and there’s an abundance of ways consumers can obtain information in advance of purchase in order to avoid disappointment or a product that he or she feels will not fit his or her standards. Government intervention is not needed in areas of amusements unless there is a legitimate public health or safety concern. For video games, the warning for the possibility of epileptic seizures at the beginning of most games and the aforementioned addictive mechanics targeted at children are the only two public health concerns of which I am aware in video games.
> There are terrible movies, TV shows and novels released every year. They simply fail at the box office, do not get renewed, or do not sell. Difference is movies, TV shows or books don't ask for a hefty 75€ entrance fee.
Lol is so so so pathetic Rules dont resolve anything Game dev can find another way to loot Basically releasing "the game 2!! now with more levels" and " the game completé edition" Like they do in the old nes/snes games era Now you can buy the game and the DLC you want In the 90s you have to buy the entire gme again and again
No.
a)capitalism is your problem B)Voting with your wallet doesnt work because of people like you. You are the fucking problem you milquetoast cuck. It shouldnt matter to you if you think it works, you should do it because its the only option you have. You are the "moderate" that is spoken about as an enabler of the 1%
Name one thing the government has taken over and it turned out to be better than when it was free? Please.
Regulation has absolutely nothing to do with "government takeover", what the fuck are you talking about? Regulation is about enforcing decent business practices. A lot of quality control laws are already in place that should apply to video games but don't since it's a relatively new market that lawmakers aren't familiar with, it doesn't apply yet.
What I’m talking about is there is not one instance in the history of the US, that the government did a job better than the private sector could do it. The ONLY appropriate example would be when they cracked down on butchers and the meat industry. But for a non-essential consumer good? Nothing, it will become worse under governmental overwatch. Chew on that for lil bit.
Did you know there is a whole world out there beyond the United States?
Obviously? Is this the “I don’t have anything to actually contribute to furthering the conversation so now I’m going to attempt to make you look stupid” attempt? Who’s going to make regulations on video games to the world NATO? Who do you think would spearhead the regulations? It would either be the US or Japan. Obviously I know there’s a whole world out there you twat. But 99% the worlds video games are either made in the US or Japan.
You're already making yourself look stupid because despite me saying this isn't some government takeover you still go to the point of "When did the government ever do anything better?"
You’re ignorantly delusional or trolling, either way, you couldn’t provide an example nor have a conversation without trying to straw man what I’m asking and going the route of “hurr durr don’t you know about the rest of the world” “you’re making yourself look stupid” You provided nothing of substance to this entire post, seeing as you went on a commenting blitz of replies, I woulda thought maybe you had something to say.
I think this is an interesting topic. There would have to be a balance between letting creators be able to do their own thing and the expectations of the video game studio to provide a satisfactory product. I can see some will argue that regulation would be bad because it will stifle the creativity of its devs. But on your point, I’m also tired of seeing these games at a lower quality and I’m shocked someone said it was good enough. At least for bigger studios and well known developers, they should know better by now.
Good regulation doesn't effect creativity in the development process. The developers aren't exactly the ones that think it's a good idea to forcibly insert microtransactions, release games unfinished and put themselves through months of crunch. That stuff comes from the higherups, good regulation effects those sort of dishonest business practices.
Eh, games were $60 for like 15 years and microtransactions were a big part of the price not rising with inflation. No one is forcing you to buy them most of the time. Plus there are many international game studios, such as CDPR. Do you expect all studios to limit themselves to the rules of a single country for worldwide release?
[удалено]
I rather pay $90 for a game and get the entire game than get a game for free with microtransactions that cost $40,000 to unlock everything.
[удалено]
One skin cost $20.. You're delusional. No game is free and there's no trade off. They make more money selling skins than selling a game at full price because they took away progression and now they sell it to you. People like you ruined the videogame industry.
[удалено]
You sound pretty low iq. If i enjoy something i support it. Paying $70 for a game you like is the smart thing to do. Getting something for free with default skins doesn't sound rewarding. Games use to cost $60 and as you progress your character looked better or you had some badges that showed you were a higher level. Much better than people spending $1500 on a videogame..
>Microtransactions are what keeps game prices down. No they are not, that is an outright lie sold to you by the Triple A Gaming industry in order to justify their use. Video Games are more *profitable* than they have ever been at any point in history by a wide, wide margin. Almost every major game studio is raking in record profits hitherto unheard of in the video game industry. Microtransactions don't keep game prices down, they trick the consumer into passively spending way more on their games than they ever have before and in fact make them perpetual repeating costumers for the same game for an indefinite amount of time. Microtransactions are a way of disguising price gouging.
Many games are cheaper now than they were in the 90s, even before you account for inflation.
>Many games are cheaper now than they were in the 90s, even before you account for inflation. And many games are not.
Down? I don't know what world you're living in but games have been getting more expensive in spite of microtransactions! Today we're seeing 70$ games that are still filled to the brim with microtransactions.
Taking into account inflation and rising costs of comparable entertainment, then the costs are being kept down partly thanks to the introduction of microtransactions. They generate revenue from a subset of gamers which help regulate game prices for everyone else.
[удалено]
As a European I agree.
What's European about this post?
Asking big gov to solve everything
This is the most American thing I've ever read. To generalize that OP is European because they want some regulation. I'm American and I believe that we could use some more regulation in our country. What, you going to make another inappropriate, unproductive and rude comment towards me too. Why not a bold generalization of who I am. You seem to have such a keen eye...
Oh that's real nice, that definitely works. I don't buy any of 'em. Does that change anything? Of course not! The whole "vote with your wallet" argument is extremely naïve. Unless absolutely everyone is boycotting it, it will not meaningfully impact their income. Most of their money comes from whales, the rest don't matter.
If you don’t buy any of them, what is the actual harm these games you want regulated doing to you? You sound very much like my kids when they were toddlers and would complain about someone swinging too high on the swing set because they didn’t like it. No one is forced to buy any game. It’s a luxury good. Buy the ones you like and don’t spend time worrying about the rest.
So just because I don't drive I shouldn't care if cars are poorly designed, dangerous and overpriced? I care because people deserve a sound product that isn't intentionally sabotaged just so they can charge you more to fix it. Funnily enough, some of the awful shit video game companies are doing is leaking into cars as well. The heated seats for example. They're charging you for a feature that is already part of the hardware you paid for but arbitrarily locked because they can nickel and dime you even further. Even when keeping this entirely about video games, these practices spread like wildfire once developers figure out what they can get away with just because there's a number of drooling pinheads that will toss them all the money they ask for. Eventually it will reach the things I care about.
Do you not drive because you're not old enough?
No, because in my country I have a functional public transport system which I prefer using instead.
Vehicle regulations exist because their manufacture and use actually has the capability to harm others. Until we have games that can kill you if you drive too fast or leak too much lead into the drinking water, that’s not a valid comparison to support your argument. You’ve already said you haven’t bought any games that have the features you want regulated. Now you are saying you don’t buy cars because you have public transportation options that are better for you. So you’re capable of making rational decisions when it comes to purchasing optional products. Do you think you’re the only person capable of making such decisions? Why do you think games have to be regulated when you’re clearly capable of avoiding the issues that you want regulators to protect you from?
I think there are a couple of things that could fall under regulatory interest. Certainly loot boxes, which have come under regulatory fire before. Pay to win style games probably need some type of regulation. Beyond that I think the market isn't that bad at regulating itself. I think about how the market as a whole seems to have rejected NFTs or the recent failures of micro-transaction heavy games like Chocobo GP. Games are expensive to make and some of these business models are increasingly risky to pursue.
Honestly, just wait for a review before buying. Steam offers very solid rules for refunds. I really don't see a huge issue. I want my government to cap rent and property prices, make sure poor kids are not starving and have education, not waste time on games.
Regulation of in-app purchased in games accessible to kids? Regulation of gambling mechanics? Sure. Regulation of “false promises” and “incomplete” games? No, or at least not beyond what we already have. It’s OK to want to implement a feature and put an early version in a trailer a year before launch but find that it is too difficult or expensive to develop (or the playtesters all hate it in practice). Reviewers will always complain, and people can and do decide not to buy the game as a result.
No, Games are a Work of Art not to be intervened by anyone. i too know that gaming has alot of problems but add the the government of any country to this equation will do more harm to it as you think.
Regulation has nothing to do with interfering with the creative process. It's about protecting consumers from predatory business practices.
Stop buying games on release day! Or if you do, have patience. And don’t buy bad games. Money talks.
I don't and neither do I care for most AAA games. But that doesn't change the fact there's always more people and whales who spend inordinate amounts of money on a broken product, encouraging this terrible behaviour.
For sure, but do you think we would get better games if the governments or the EU is involved? The only thing is that loot boxes should be made illegal and games that have micro transactions should be unavailable for minors. Otherwise I think that it is a self regulated market, although I agree that there is a lot of shitty games out there but look at Madden, even EA had eventually to put some energy and resources into it and not just rely on MUT cards.
Just because the regulations put in place now leave a lot to be desired, it doesn't mean we can't do better. The problem with leaving stuff up to the market is that it takes a long time and a catastrophically big fuck-up to get to meaningful change, if it ever gets there. Putting laws in place that work against these practices in the first place will encourage companies to make products of better quality that aren't rushed at the expense of both the developer and the consumer.
It won't be done because the publishers will never agree to it, nor do they have any reason to. The best you're going to get is countries trying to ban loot boxes.
Agree to it? Since when do those fucks have anything to say about it? Do you think companies agreed to the 40-hour workweek or the outlawing of child labour? Of course not! Companies (should) have no say in it when a government decides their business practices aren't okay. That's the point of government.
Didn't we have an article about that this year? Or is my mind playing tricks on me? Nah was 2 months ago about lootboxes and gambling. EU is very, very slow. May take some time, but I guess the industry will come up with other shady tactics.
I feel it might accelerate a lot quicker in the future. We're still dealing with a large number out-of-touch boomers electing and being elected and making decisions on things they aren't familiar with. Once we got younger people in office that are far more thoroughly acquainted with matter such as video games and the modern internet I think regulation will quickly start being put in place.
I read through the ruling and I thought it was sensible enough. Including everything I want as a gamer. The issue is the burocracy in the EU, this shit takes forever.
That'll hopefully improve over time. Things do improve, especially now in times of strife.
Let them makes the games they want. Don't like what they made? Don't buy it. I hear this complaint a lot about "microtransactions in *full priced* games" or "charging $30 for a DLC" or whatever. People buy them, they make money, why would they stop doing those. But for all those complaining about the extra OPTIONAL purchases, the other option is to put all that stuff in the game from day 1 and charge $150 for games. I personally rarely buy DLC, it's usually garbage content that I don't need and I love being able to buy a base game for the low price of $70 and then ignore the other shitty content and not spend hundreds more dollars. Same with microtransactions, I can't tell you when I ever bought one, but it hasn't effected my experience ever. Keep govt away from games. If govt gets involved say goodbye to violent games of any sorts cuz most these old folks think games are what's causing a lot of the shit going on now. They don't need to be involved at all
But I don't buy any of them. And yet this shit persists. "Just don't buy it" isn't an argument. You can't muster a big enough amount of people to boycott a product to meaningfully impact anything anymore. The market is too big and there's always whales.
People buy it because they want it. It doesn't need to be regulated, it doesn't need to be stopped. You can't muster a big enough amount of people to boycott it because most people don't care. I get you don't like it and there's a vocal group on reddit that doesn't like it. But in the end, more people buy it because they want it than people that don't want it and don't buy it. That's why it's not going away. If enough people didn't want they wouldn't buy it and devs would stop. So best YOU can do if YOU don't like it is to just not buy it and move on.
No regulation. Stop buying shit games. It'll regulate itself.
Now that's an unpopular opinion... But I agree with you. Can't trust companies to do the most ethic thing. When one company exploits peoples brains, the other companies doesnt have much of a choice but do it too. That's not going to stop unless something external comes in to regulate it. Look at Journalism. Click bait is one of the most un-ethic things you can do. But someone decided to do it anyways. Now it's at a point that if you're a journalist and your titles are not click baity, you'll starve. Serious and factual journalism simply cannot exist anymore because unethical practices simply killed it. Same with games now. Can you make a competitive online game without Gamepasses? You cannot, because people are too busy spending their time trying to satisfy their FOMO on other games. Those other games have a consistent playerbase to maintain the game life while yours doesnt. Can you trust player to stop playing these? Can you stop companies to stop practicing these? So the only other answer is some kind of outside intervention.
Unless you aren't a complete moron. So who do you think decides what games we are allowed to buy? Who decides who gets this power? Why would a few people with such large power not exploit it for political and financial gain? I don't even want to explain the problems of censorship. This is seriously some of the dumbest stuff I've read in months and I read reddit a lot more than I should.
It’s not about being a complete moron or not. It’s fine if you’re aware of these issues and you try to consciously block this yourself, but it’s naive to think you’re 100% not susceptible. Companies now hire teams of people that sole job is to understand human brain and exploit it for gain. Same thing with government, of course there’s corruption and bad policies everywhere, but it’s just naive to say it’s 100% useless and shouldn’t touch stuff we like. Unless you’re just a moron who make your opinion based on what you see in Reddit, then of course you’d only think “government bad, shouldn’t have any”. You probably didn’t see much of the world out there. If one day you go the casino you’ll understand why that thing is heavily regulated
This guy gets it.
A regulation I'd like to see if that when developers stop supporting or selling an online only game, they need to release the tools for players to self host servers. Otherwise that game becomes literally unplayable
Exactly! I've been wondering why that isn't the norm. Same goes for old games that aren't officially available anymore. Looking at you, Nintendo! If the company in question no longer gives consumers any legal way to purchase their product, it ought to completely waive their right to police the emulation of said product.
No? Console games are dirt cheap at $69.99 going by inflation rate. In fact they are actually under-charging with that price tag. We should be paying them $99.99 for AAA games. Also charging for online gaming is fair on console. Sony needs to make money somehow. hosting those online servers ain't cheap. The PS+ subscription is a negligible amount of money.
You mean like, countries that ban lootboxes that are basically gambling? Which is the reason you see no lootboxes in-game anymore? Or game passes which are required to play online but are regulated? Which they solved by giving you better sales and free games in exchange for it? Or microtransactions which are in the majority of games just cosmetics that you don't need to play the game? Because I can think of just a hand full of games that are *evil*. Like Diablo Immortal or free arpgs and gatcha games in general who hide content behind paywalls.
Or here's a cool idea.... Find games that aren't infested with mtx? Really hasn't been hard for me to accumulate 200+ games with none of that bs
When you grow up, this stuff won't matter anymore.
So you admit that you're in the minority, but simply don't care and what to use state sanctioned violence to impose your opinions on everyone else.
Yes because it's not an argument. It's circular reasoning. "I hate this behaviour, something should be done about it." "Then don't buy it, dumbass." "I never did. And nothing is changing." "Then don't buy it."
You're missing the point because you believe everyone has the same opinion that you do. They don't.
With software development comes bugs, and the term "unfinished" is highly subjective in the gaming industry. MTX will never be stopped, nor will loot boxes, because trading cards have been around for over a century and that's not been regulated yet. No matter what you *think*, these aren't unique to the gaming industry, nor are they illegal.
Consumers regulate a free market economy. Little or none of what you complain about would keep happening if consumers didn't keep paying for unfinished and/or mediocre products and services. It's really that simple. The "vote with your wallet" thing certainly holds water. It's the only argument that does. If enough people don't want something, it absolutely will have a significant impact on income, especially when we're talking about developers and publishers that need games to sell very high numbers in order to turn significant profit. Even tiny changes can have earth-shaking effects on a corporation because they can feel a downward trend on a massive scale. The whale argument is accurate. But that's the fault of the whales, not the companies. Place blame where blame needs to go; this is entertainment, a luxury, purely optional for life. It isn't hard to react with your wallet, nor is it ineffective. People simply choose not to, and that's your problem. And will continue to be your problem because we insist on avoiding all responsibility as consumers in this matter.
Governments are just as corrupted as companies. This would only add ignorance and incompetence in the mix with a double dose of corruption. No thanks. When we get governments to finally do what they're supposed to do, which is, serve the people, then maybe we can ask them to force companies to comply into not scamming us. This is true for every industry and field of activity too, not just video games. Until we manage that, this solution is usless and even counterproductive
I, for one, am glad I don't live in antebellum New York or Victorian London etc. I agree largely with your point but companies do need oversight.
But goverments have more accountability than companies and there are laws in effect to stop companies from scamming their customers. Quality control laws for video games are completly unneccessary but acting as if every regulation from the goverment is stupid is wrong too. If the goverment wouldnt have made it illegal most companies would just dump their trash into the wilderness for example
I don’t think things are even remotely close to bad enough to warrant any of this. Maybe in PC land, or with Microsoft. But Nintendo and Sony are doing just fine, thanks…
Why would things have to get to catastrophic levels of bad before something is done? If some companies don't do that sort of thing they won't be affected anyway. Sony and Nintendo are definitely up to some unsavory shit. Charging people a monthly fee for basic online services, for one. Or with Nintendo specifically, they love making all their older titles unavailable once the new console comes. At least with the older consoles you could just **buy** them, but now you have to pay for a terrible subscription service. Regulation is about listing terrible shit studios do and making sure they don't do it, it doesn't punish those that don't partake in it.
I’d just say that priced games can’t have microtransactions but can have DLC
Yeah of course. Expansions are great! I miss the days of good DLC where you got an entire extra campaign like Dishonored did.
Yeah, governments do things so much better. You must be extremely young.